To start off, let me say, I am not a gun enthusiast. I do not own a gun, have not really thought about owning a gun, and likely will not (at least not anytime soon). I am a moderate (very moderate) libertarian. I pretty often find myself straddling the line on nearly every important political issue (social or economic). I only tell you this so you can understand the frame of mind that this is written in. Writing is bias (yes, this definitely includes the news), because it is written the way the author sees the world. Perception is reality.
Gun control has been a hot topic, especially on social media, thanks to Obama’s proposals Wednesday. My opinion: the majority of statements around Gun Control seem to be missing the issue completely. Yes, I am saying Gun Control is not entirely about Gun Control.
That being said, based on the statements I read on mass media about this exact topic, I don’t believe most people understand the issue in its entirety. There is a sense of tunnel-vision, seeing the world in black and white, and it misses some key issues. The answer isn’t simple, because the two major factions don’t ask the same questions.
This is entering into some fundamentals of American politics and the main two parties, but I will try to keep it brief. A fundamental difference is the view of where responsibility/power should lie. American Liberalism tends to view responsibility as lying with the government, while American Conservatism tends to see the people as those who should hold the power. This translates generally to most of the party views on issues, but there are inconsistencies; gun control is not one.
What does this mean in terms of gun control? For Liberals, the government has an obligation to protect the people, hence the increase in gun control. This supports the liberal mindset, which leans towards a larger government. However, for the ideological conservative who opposes large government, this is an impediment on his (or her) freedoms.
The 2nd amendment, was not written so that Joe Schmoe could go hunting on Saturday, although there is nothing wrong with that. The amendment was written by a group of men who had experienced tyranny, who had fought for their freedom against an unjust government, and believed the people should have a right and a way to rebel against unjust governments. The first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, were written to protect the rights of the people against such unjust governments. The right to “bear arms”, simply put, allows the people the ability to rebel against a government that becomes tyrannical. A tyrannical government infringes upon those rights guaranteed in the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.
To a conservative, this is a “double-whammy”. The government is trying to stop them from being able to protect themselves against an unjust government, while increasing its power. The federal powers have grown immensely since America’s founding. While America is nowhere near a dictatorship, to most conservatives, this is an issue of State Rights, and the growing power of the Central government at the cost of the States.
What about the reality of gun control? I proffer the example of illegal drugs. Despite the many laws in place that ban these substances and the over $1 trillion spent since the “War on Drugs” began, they are still relatively prevalent in the United States. My first point: criminals don’t have a track record for following the law… hence, the fact that they are criminals.
I recently watched a video testimony of a woman who lost her parents to a gun homicide. She tells her story, how she watched her father get shot, and tries searching for her own gun in defense. To her horror, she remembers that she had left her gun in the car because it was illegal for her to carry a concealed weapon (I believe she is in Texas). In a moment of opportunity, she fled, but her mother did not. She found out after the incident that her mother did not make it. (You can watch this video here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.
I recently watched a video testimony of a woman who lost her parents to a gun homicide. She tells her story, how she watched her father get shot, and tries searching for her own gun in defense. To her horror, she remembers that she had left her gun in the car because it was illegal for her to carry a concealed weapon (I believe she is in Texas). In a moment of opportunity, she fled, but her mother did not. She found out after the incident that her mother did not make it. (You can watch this video here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.
As a law abiding citizen, she didn’t carry her gun. And the majority of law abiding citizens probably wouldn’t have. Her point is the criminals are still going to carry guns. She even blames lawmakers for leaving her unable to protect herself.
America currently holds the #1 spot for gun ownership, with over 88 guns per 100 people. This is a lot, especially when you factor in that the #2 country has less than 55 guns per 100 people. (1) But please understand, this does not mean 88% of Americans own a gun, because many people who own guns own multiple guns. Nevertheless, America holds the 28th position for gun-related deaths, and according to the CDC, there are only 3.6 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people.(2)
Despite an actually low level of gun-related homicides, there has been an increase of gun related incidents in schools. According to the American BAR Association, it rose from 1 incident per year in 1992, to 5 in 1998 (4). While this information is disappointingly outdated, this is a major cause for concern.
So, the data shows that guns do not cause violence. And, if someone were planning to commit a violent act, such as the guy in China who injured 23 school-children on a stabbing spree(3), they will find a way. My main concern with increased gun control is that these proposals will give us a false sense that we have solved the problem.
Dear Washington Liberals, what is your plan for the potential black market that would be created from stringent gun control laws? We share a border with Mexico, a country whose drug cartels use guns heavily, and seem to have little problem smuggling over large amounts of cocaine across the border. I doubt they would find dealing guns much more difficult. This is why the issue behind the violence needs to be addressed, there will always be violent alternatives.
Do I want a government to spend $500 million on gun control reforms, that I believe are simple “band-aid” solutions, when their inability to pass a budget (going on 4 years in April, 2013) has resulted in unprecedented spending landing our economy in over $16 trillion debt?
Now I agree with the majority of the proposals made by Pres. Obama. (See item 5 for a list from NY Times). His Executive Orders aimed to address mental health do not seem sufficient for me. Also, the idea of limiting a magazine that can be reloaded in under 5 seconds seems to pretty useless, but I’m sure others would sleep better.
If you were to walk away with two main points, take these: 1. Guns do not cause violence, so gun control does not address the issue of violence, rather it addresses a medium through which violence is committed. 2. With the increasing power of the Central Government, is this an issue for the Central Government (especially the President alone to deal with Executive Orders), or is this an issue best handled closer to the people on a State level?
If you were to walk away with two main points, take these: 1. Guns do not cause violence, so gun control does not address the issue of violence, rather it addresses a medium through which violence is committed. 2. With the increasing power of the Central Government, is this an issue for the Central Government (especially the President alone to deal with Executive Orders), or is this an issue best handled closer to the people on a State level?
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment