The day the shooting took place in Connecticut I made a post saying that the gun control debate needs to wait a day or two. My point was that we needed to grieve and let the affected grieve before politicizing the event. For the most part, my FB friends agreed, but some disagreed. Some stated that the time to have the gun control discussion is always "NOW" as opposed to later. I understand that, and respect that opinion. I just disagreed. I still think the event was politicized and turned into a tool the same day it happened which seemed to belittle the humanity involved.
At any rate, it's a few days later. The debate has been going on. Some saying "gun control now," others saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well, that last statement is true, but the availability of those so-called "assault" weapons do make it easier for people to kill people. To me, that is just simple truth. Does that, however, make an all out ban on "assault" weapons the solution to the issue? I don't know. I just don't. I don't think I have enough information and factual data to say that.
What I do know is that the majority of gun-owners in this country are responsible folks who respect firearms and know how to properly use, maintain and store them. Further, the majority of these folks teach their children/grandchildren that same respect and responsibility. They own firearms for many different reasons: recreational shooting (target shooting), hunting, protection, seemingly ridiculous "doomsday prepping," etc.
Many times over the past few days I've heard/read the arguments: "no one needs an assault rifle," "no single household needs more than one gun," no one needs a semi-automatic weapon" to name a few. As far as the "no one needs" anything argument, I just don't find that reasonable. There are plenty of things that no one "needs" that people still have. Exotic animals, multiple expensive automobiles, private islands, other kinds of weapons, etc. "Need" is such an over-used, and misused word these days. Obviously most of us have things we don't "need." Some then answer "but cars and other things aren't made for killing, guns are." I guess I have to disagree again. While the argument can be made that firearms are specifically made to kill, I don't think that is their sole purpose. One of the few activities that my father and I were able to "bond" with was target shooting. I enjoyed the times I went to the range with my dad. There were times I went to the range with others and we shot everything from revolvers to AR-15s. Each and every time I went to the range (no matter how many times I'd been) I was always reminded of the "rules." Is it fair to take away those "assault" weapons from hobbyists and enthusiasts who follow the rules and take proper precautions to secure those weapons and keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them? Maybe it isn't fair, but maybe it's necessary? Again, I don't know. I tend to think it isn't the solution because it's those responsible folks that I WANT to have those firearms.
"No one needs a semi-automatic weapon." This seems to be one of the poorest arguments I've heard. Again it's the misuse of the word "need" relative to all of our other possessions, but that's not really the point. Other than a muzzleloader or other very old firearms, basically EVERY gun made today is "semi-automatic." Even a revolver could be considered "semi-automatic" because it allows the shooter to fire several rounds without physically reloading the weapon. Hunting rifles and shotguns are "semi-automatic" in that they may hold several rounds that can be fired in relatively rapid succession without physically reloading. I don't think this argument is worded properly to be relevant to the discussion. Be more specific about the types of weaponry you feel should be banned.
While I'm not opposed to stricter regulations (particularly with regard to gun shows and private trades), I am opposed to an all-out ban on anything. Could I be persuaded, given ample valid evidence to support its success, to ban all assault rifles? Possibly. I'm not so married to the idea that private citizens should be rightful in possessing all kinds of firearms, but I am against an all-out ban on weapons without a realistic expectation that such a ban would resolve the problem. Again, I just don't have enough information. If we ask, how many of the guns used in these mass murders were a) legally obtained and b) legally and rightfully in the hands of the perpetrators, what answer other than 100% supports those stricter regulations? If the weapons being used in these crimes were illegally obtained (by criminals who obviously have no regard for human life let alone federal, state or local laws) then how would stricter laws prevent these events recurring? Some say that simply reducing the availability would keep these weapons out of the hands of those who don't need them. Possibly, but I don't logically see how that works. Do you systematically collect all of those firearms from private citizens? If so, what incentive would anyone other than a responsible law-abiding citizen have to turn those guns in? Those firearms would instantly increase in value and become even more desirable on the black market. The result is that criminals will still have access to those weapons, albeit more difficult, while responsible folks will not. Does that mean we should or shouldn't move forward with said ban? Again, I don't know. I don't know.
Ultimately I think there is a multi-faceted response to the country as a whole that is essential to tackling this problem. It includes ensuring proper mental health care to those who need it, and instruction on how to identify those individuals early on. That will likely mean us giving up some of our privacy with regard to medical data, and it will mean additional bureaucracy to oversee said data (which I personally think is a nightmare).
I think it includes a redefinition of "masculinity" in this country. Out of the 62 mass murders in the past half-century, 61 have been perpetrated by males. The profiles generally show a very intelligent younger male with social issues. My personal opinion is that it goes into the image of masculinity, and what it means to be a "real man." Males, especially in the South, are generally taught to hide feelings, bottle them up, to not show emotion, etc. I also think that young people today are more and more emotional, and I think the literal bombardment of information and opinion through television, social media, and pop culture give these young people conflicting ideas of that image of masculinity which can cause internal conflict. In extreme cases I think it leads to violent action.
I think it includes a re-examination as a country of how we report news, specifically news of these kinds of attacks. The sensationalist journalism sells, no question, but at what cost? Do we really need to immortalize these shooters by plastering their names and faces over every medium available? Does that encourage others to want to "one-up" the last tragedy? I feel like some of these folks become so twisted that they believe being feared, becoming a monstrosity, is the only way to be noticed. Our video games, our films, our culture is so conducive to rebellion and anarchy that some impressionable minds can't help but be led down such a path.
I'm not advocating for anything specifically at this point other than discussion. Dialogue. That doesn't mean arguing your "side" as if it is absolute truth. None of us has the knowledge to give a definitive absolute answer on this. What we all have are our opinions, and our feelings. If we can learn to express ourselves in a civil manner, perhaps we can discover some specific measures to take in preventing these tragedies in the future. Do those measures include tighter gun laws? Perhaps. Do they include all-out bans on "semi-automatic" weapons? Personally I don't think so. I think that by unequivocally making guns the scapegoat here we are missing the bigger picture. Guns are just the tools, the "symptoms" if you will, of a much larger societal illness. Let's not rush down one path without addressing everything. Let's not treat the symptoms without trying to eliminate the illness. Let's not call each other "wrong" in hastily shoving our narrow answer down others throats lest we miss some essential corrections that could also help. For any side of this to proclaim absolutely that its one-dimensional response is the absolute and only answer is simply ignorant (and I hate the word ignorant for its constant misusage - it's being used correctly here). So that's my 2 cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment