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

Gun Laws - Some More Thoughts

We have a problem in our country. Well, we have lots of problems, but the one I want to address is the problem we have with people being killed as a result of gunfire.

In this country, since the Sandy Hook school massacre, there have been by some counting methods over 900 mass shootings. Of course, some will argue that we should use different counting methods, which gives us a number between 140 and 150.

During that same time period, there are by some counts over 32,000 people killed in this country by gunfire.

Those numbers are too big. No matter which numbers you use, those numbers are too big. Too many people are being killed by gunfire in this country - the statistics are comparable to some countries that are experiencing armed conflict (war).

I'm not interested in parsing the numbers. Maybe the ones I found online are off, and maybe you have better data. If we're going to parse numbers, the first questions I'm interested in asking would be, "How many people being killed by gunfire in this country is acceptable?"

Now as soon as we start talking about how many people die by gunfire, the conversation moves to the second amendment to the US Constitution (the assumption being, apparently, that government is planning to take away everyone's firearms). Of course, we'll have disagreements on the interpretation of the second amendment, particularly whether the right to keep and bear arms stands on its own, or whether that right in inextricably linked to the establishment of a well-regulated militia.

Then what happens is that individuals and groups seem to get entrenched in their position, calling for either more restrictions on firearm purchases and ownership or stating vehemently that we already have enough gun laws.

Fine. We disagree with each other. This is not the first time that's happened in anyone's life. Remember kindergarten? Remember learning how to negotiate the use of that one particular toy that two of you wanted? Some of us simply learned how to get the toy we wanted by yelling about it, or by simply taking it. On school playgrounds, those children are crybabies or bullies.

Those of us who learned conflict resolution in healthy ways learned how to listen to each other, and how to talk with each other. Surely by the time we get to be adults, we've discovered how to talk and listen, instead of whining and bullying (though to observe Congress, you might not think so).

So, no matter what the numbers are, I think we would all agree that something needs to change in our country in relation to how many people are killed by gunfire. If you don't think thousands of people being killed every year is problematic, you probably didn't read this far anyway.

I would propose the following:

1) Tighten the gunshow loophole. Set a limit on how many guns an individual is able to sell before they are categorized as a dealer. Maybe the number is 5 guns per month. Maybe it's 20 guns per year. Maybe it's a different number, but let's put a number to it so that the law actually has some teeth.

2) Restrict the sale of assault style and military style weapons. Unless a person is part of an assault team, or is in the military, I don't understand what reasonable use they'd have for that kind of weapon. And since we already restrict what kinds of firearms a person can own (I don't think it's legal for me to own anti-aircraft weaponry), this restriction is simply one of degree, not kind.

3) Restrict the size of ammunition magazines that citizens are permitted to own. If a person is truly and honestly worried about nine rounds not being enough to deter an intruder into their home, they either need better training in the use of firearms, or they have a reason to need police protection.

4) Require licensing, registration, training, and insurance for all gun owners. We do it for automobiles, we should be able to do that for firearms. Obviously some people wouldn't be able to pass the training. Some people don't pass driver's training either.

We don't allow those people to drive because we, as a society, have determined that they're not able to do so safely. If a person can't pass the training, they probably can't safely own a firearm ... and so probably shouldn't.

Obviously the simple fact of passing laws isn't going to force everyone to follow them. However, the reason we pass laws (ideally) is for the betterment of our society. In this case, I'd propose that we pass these laws in order to keep people safe.

Will everyone follow them? Of course not. We have laws on our books regulating the use of child safety seats in automobiles. Does everyone follow them? Of course not. Did the passage of those laws decrease the number of child deaths in car accidents? Yes it did. And for that reason, the laws are worthwhile.

If passing laws regulating firearms decreases the number of people who die from gunfire, then they're worth passing.

***

Some people, and maybe even some of you my seven readers, may disagree with me. That's fine. In fact, that's encouraged. I'm not so bold as to think I have thought through everything I need to consider. And I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm always right.

So please disagree with me. But instead of simply railing against this (or any other) proposal, I invite you to offer your own opinion about what needs to change. Because obviously something does.

$0.02