My Whole Expanse I Cannot See…

I formulate infinity stored deep inside of me…

Dec 10

To a reader: I beg to differ

Category: Life,Opinions

I knew that, soon enough, I’d get a pro-gun comment on my mass-shootings post. I also knew that when said comment came, I’d have to take it downtown to Chinatown…

A reader commented:

What is the root cause of shootings? Is it all about the tool? Not the actor, nor his motives? I realize that public policy is a blunt instrument which can more easily impact firearm availability than it can change motives, reduce hate, etc. That doesn’t mean that we ought to use public policy to “solve” this issue.
What is a military grade weapon? What is military grade ammo? I could argue that almost everything on the market fits this category. What type of firearm hasn’t been used by the military at one point or another? Any hunting rifle is practically identical to a sniper rifle. Hunting ammo is more lethal than what the military uses, by far. Revolvers were used by the military and police – even in modern times, like the last 50 years. Shotguns are used by the military. Get rid of them too? The military uses non-lethal rounds. So, could a private citizen shot bean-bags from a shotgun to defend himself within his home? I guess not, because both the shotgun and the ammo are military grade.
What is left for people to use to defend themselves? Pellet guns? 22s? Archery? Or should people just call 911 and hope for the best?
But if you want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, which was born from the right to self-defense, then who gets disarmed first? Law abiding citizens will probably be the first ones to turn in their weapons. They won’t want to risk going to jail for gun ownership. Then who is left? What is the plan for them?
Seems like a utopian plan that would be impossible to execute, in my opinion.

To which I replied:

My little aside about my personal feelings toward the 2nd Amendment isn’t the point. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere, nobody of relevance in politics is suggesting such. It’ll never be abolished, no matter my wants.

I think that we ABSOLUTELY need public policy to combat gun violence, particularly mass-shootings. The Federal Government has avoided the issue for way too long, and people have died because of it. There are many issues that are involved in the prevention of mass-shootings; better treatment of mental illness, better opportunities for higher-education, improved economic opportunities, social issues that will take time to fix. The immediate problem is the tool, as you say, the gun. The motives don’t matter, not right now, because all mass-shootings have the same common thread. Somebody really angry or really mentally-ill was able to easily obtain firearms. The motives and the whys are for psychologists to study, they’re the keys to long-term solutions. Long-term solutions won’t stop the bloodshed that’s happening of late, again and again and again, seven mass-shootings in just the past five months.

We need stricter background checks that REQUIRE psychological evaluation (The Brady Bill was a good idea).
All gun buyers’ finger-prints should be stored in AFIS.
The gun show and online sales loopholes need closed.
Private gun sales should require ATF oversight.
We need a new assault-weapons ban.

Military grade gear, such as the following… Civilians should not have M16s, MP5s, Desert Eagles, or ammo that punches through body armor as easy as a brick of cheese. I didn’t mean gear from WWI.

I think I have a few more gun violence posts in me, there’s just so much to say…


3 Comments so far

  1. Otávio Pacheco December 11th, 2015 7:42 am

    Great debate, very important. I think his comment contains one of the answers: “Law abiding citizens will probably be the first ones to turn in their weapons.” Those citizens probably won’t bother letting his finger prints, and for sure they won’t buy military grade gear.

  2. Matt December 11th, 2015 11:21 pm

    Most of the folks promoting more gun restrictions do not build their arguments from the bottom up, connecting facts, which lead to logical conclusions.
    Like this—
    Armor piercing ammunition is more lethal than full metal jacket ammunition and hollow points.
    Armor piercing ammunition has been used in many of the recent mass murders.
    Therefore, it endangers the lives of the public and especially the first responders whose responsibility it is to protect us. Hence, we could save lives if we banned armor-piercing ammunition.
    I’m clearly not an expert in logic. But if each premise were true (which they are generally false), it might be a pretty tight argument and the conclusion would naturally follow. I think you could do a better job than I did and more people might be persuaded.
    We should not lead with conclusions and then support them with opinions.
    I enjoy reading your posts. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my previous comment.
    Hope you are doing well.

  3. Matt December 11th, 2015 11:29 pm

    Did you write that law-abiding citizens do not buy military grade gear? If so, you might want to re-think that stereotype. Also, did not understand the comment about fingerprints.

Leave your thoughts