What I'm Willing to Accept: More Thoughts on Guns in this Nation

I'm not willing to accept that this is just the way things are, the way things are going to be. I'm not willing to believe that we just have to accept occasional massacres as part of the cost of being USAmerican citizens.

I've written on gun violence before on this blog. If you're interested in what I was thinking at the time I wrote, scroll back through the archives. Today, here's what I'm thinking; here's what I believe.

Now, some might say that it's too early after this most recent tragedy to talk about legislation. I disagree, but am willing to concede that it might be too early for some people. OK. I'm willing to wait. Is one week of mourning an adequate amount of time? If so, let's have this conversation starting Monday morning next week. If not, how about one month? Is that enough time to mourn collectively? Then let's schedule the conversation for November 1 (All Saint's Day ... maybe a good day to talk about our nation's propensity to inflict death on one another using firearms).

Regardless of whether it's today, next week, or next month, the conversation needs to happen sooner instead of later. And I, for one, am ready to have the conversation, starting with listening to those with whom I disagree.

This morning I listened to a very articulate conservative talk show host make very reasonable points about gun use and ownership. I listened to him make a well-reasoned argument about the necessity of not increasing the amount of firearms regulation. I appreciated his perspective. His perspective, at least in part, is that the positive of allowing USAmerican citizens the (second amendment) freedom to own weapons outweighs the negative of tragedies like what happened this past weekend in Las Vegas.

I, however, disagree. I believe that gun ownership should be more strongly regulated. Like other constitutional rights that are restricted by certain situations and conditions, the right to own weapons is already restricted. A private citizen, for instance, is not allowed to purchase a fully automatic rifle.

For me, greater restrictions on firearms ownership is better; for the very articulate conservative, less restrictions are better. We both came to our position thoughtfully, and by considering what we believe to be best for our nation. And neither of us, I'd guess, is interested in changing our mind without some kind of significant evidence that counters what we believe in obvious ways.

But I would absolutely be willing to change my opinion if I were faced with good, non-biased, non-partisan, peer-reviewed research indicating that my opinion does not, in fact, lead to a more ideal reality.

At one point in time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded research into gun violence. However, in 1996, Congress withheld funding for that research, and threatened to cut all CDC funding if that agency continued with research into gun violence.

Perhaps the CDC is not the appropriate agency to do this research. OK. How about a different agency, like the National Institute of Justice?

The point is, my opinion will change if good, responsible, scientific, peer-reviewed research shows that my opinion leads to death and not life.

And I'm not willing to accept that there's nothing we can do to decrease gun violence in this country.

So, while I will continue to call for an increase in reasonable restrictions on gun purchases and ownership, I'll also call for federal funding for gun violence research. And if the research indicates that an increase in restrictions is a bad idea, I'll change my opinion.

But without the research, we have nothing but our opinions.

$0.02