After yet another mass shooting in an American school, the social media space is abuzz with conversations about the subject. Unlike past events, there seems to be an effort to mobilize young voters to participate in the electoral process. Specifically these voters and soon to be voters are being encouraged to put pressure on Congress to enact meaningful firearms legislation. I think that this is a step in the right direction, but without an idea of what legislation should look like, I do not see how anything will change.
I am personally leaning towards the belief that there does need to be some legislative action taken to attempt to address the ease with which weapons are obtained, the lack of barriers to prevent them from being used in tragic ways, and the lack of consequence for their use. This an extremely complex topic and I do not have "the answer" to it. I would like to think that the thoughts that I have on it are useful to the discussion, and perhaps might help create a middle ground that people can come together on.
It is a fact that the "right" to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Because of this, having any rational discussion about restrictions on ownership of firearms is extremely difficult. A common narrative among a sizeable portion of the population is that the United States was founded by people who did not trust the government. Because of that lack of trust, they created the Constitution as a safe guard to protect the people from the government exercising too much power over them. They also created a number of checks and balances to allow the people to change the Constitution and if necessary, revolt against and dismantle the government.
For people who do not trust the government and who see the government as a tyrannical force that threatens their own sense of freedom and self determination, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. To these people, they imagine a day when the government will get "so bad" that they will have no choice but to pick up their assault rifles and start killing Congressmen, the President, police officers and anyone else identified as an agent of the government. For people with that mentality, firearm ownership is like a safety blanket. They can reassure themselves that "everything is going to be okay" as long as they have enough guns and ammunition, and surround themselves with like minded individuals.
Similarly there are those who see a societal collapse as inevitable. They also do not trust the government and do not believe in the government's ability to maintain order in a crisis. They feel isolated from their neighbors and threatened by their fellow citizens. They worry about, or maybe even look forward to the day, when a crisis of serious magnitude strikes and society collapses. In their minds, their ownership of firearms will allow them to save themselves and live in freedom while the world melts down around them.
The above two groups of people are the primary obstacle to any rational discussion on firearms policy. They are borderline delusional, view anyone who thinks that a society needs some level of government to function effectively as the enemy, and are scared. They will of course not admit that they are scared, because that would be too difficult for them. In their minds, their guns make them strong. Owning guns means that they do not have to be scared. They will not admit that they want to own firearms to one day overthrow the government because doing so would land them in jail.
The people in the groups above have the most to "lose" in any discussion about limiting access to firearms. They have the most to lose by having open and honest discussions about why they REALLY want to own firearms. Crazy is okay as long as it is kept in the dark and not discussed. Once it is out in the open, it has to be owned. It has be justified. A person with a crazy belief has to come to grips with the fact that THEY might be the ones on the fringe, the broken ones. They might have to realize that it is not society that is the problem, it is their perception of society and their responses to those perceptions.
A third group that I will not spend too much time are the firearms manufacturers. They make a lot of money every year selling guns. Any limit on the ability of people to purchase their products will cut into their profits. I think this speaks for itself and it is quite clear why they actively fund opposition to gun legislation.
On the other hand, to have any hope at any meaningful gun legislation, the gun owners need to be considered. Their views have to be given careful consideration. Their fears need to be addressed. They need to feel safe to speak about issues that affect them and not be judged for their responses and behaviors. Every single person in the world is doing the absolute best that they can given the circumstances that they have been raised in. No one out there is without fault. No one can say that they are flawless or that they cannot do better. Nobody does not have a weakness that they are afraid of others using against them. In fact those who proclaim the loudest that they are without fault, that they are not weak, they are the ones who are the most damaged and the most in need of help.
Here we are in a country where a significantly politically active and vocal group of people have made certain that practically anybody can easily obtain weapons designed to kill as many people as efficiently as possible. Whatever their reasons for wanting to provide easy access to these weapons are, the fact of the matter is that those weapons are available. And it is the availability of those weapons, and the lack of controls around those weapons, that is leading to tragedy after tragedy.
The conversations around what to do about access to the weapons are too polarized. They are too extreme. Banning the weapons completely is never going to happen. Too many people already own the weapons and it is impractical to seize them all. And truthfully, 99% of gun owners are "responsible" gun owners. Their weapons will never be used against another human being.
However it is clear that if the status quo is maintained, hundreds of innocent people are going to continue dying every year at school, shopping malls, movie theaters, and various other public places.
The question is how to we respect the interests of those who want to own guns, but also foster a society in which those guns are kept away from people with evil intentions to harm others.
The fact is that no solution is perfect. Anyone who wants a "perfect" solution is not a person who can be reasoned with. Anyone who derides potential solutions as "imperfect" is not someone who can be reasoned with. Perfection is impossible. To expect or demand perfection is to maintain the status quo. Anyone who does that has no interest in the discussion and should be ignored. They are just a distraction.
Our society has plenty of examples to draw from when it comes to controlling access to dangerous things, while still allowing people who need or want access to them, to have them. The most accessible example is automobiles. As the 102 people who died every day in 2016 from a motor vehicle accident show, automobiles are extremely dangerous. None the less, as of 2016 there are approximately 221 MILLION Americans licensed to drive an automobile.
As a society, we have developed a regime of training, testing, licensing and insurance. We require people to learn how to operate a motor vehicle, test them to verify that they can do so safely, license them to identify them, and require them to carry insurance in case they cause any harm or damage while operating their vehicle. This is a program that works, and while it is not perfect as proven by the 102 people who died every day in 2016 due to improper use of a motor vehicle, as a society we have determined that the benefits outweigh the risks and the system that we have is "good enough" (note, it's not perfect).
Before I talk about gun legislation, I want to touch upon one very important aspect of firearm ownership. That aspect is "self defense". I think that I am slightly more qualified than most people to discuss self defense. I have been training kung fu for sixteen years. I am qualified to teach other people how to defend themselves. I understand the physical and mental implications of hurting someone else, and if I were put in a situation where I had to, I could do a lot of harm to another human being. I also understand how to use weapons including clubs and knives. I am an average sized male, so I also understand what it is like to be confronted with opponents who are larger, stronger, in better shape or better trained.
Having said all of that, I completely understand why someone would want a firearm for self defense. I am all for firearm ownership for self defense. I am all about women being able to obtain a handgun or shotgun for self defense. I completely understand why someone who is trained would prefer to use a firearm to defend themselves against an attacker wielding a knife, club or other common weapon.
I think it is important to mention that the best defense is to avoid conflict. And when a situation begins to escalate towards conflict, to find a way to disengage and escape.
So I think that it is important when considering gun legislation, that a very clear line be drawn and a definition be created that identifies weapons (like handguns) that are good for self defense, and weapons (like "assault rifles") are not practical for self defense. This is where things get complicated. I will admit that I am not a legislator nor a gunsmith. So everything I offer here is just an outline. The general idea though is to define a class of weapons that is "just good enough" for self defense. And everything that is "too good (at killing people)" in any situation other than self defense, gets classified into a more restricted and harder to access tier.
Again, not a gunsmith, but one example here is barrel length. The shorter the barrel, the less accurate a gun is. Rifles have very long barrels and many are accurate at well beyond 100 meters. I think that any reasonable person can agree that if someone is 100 meters (a football field away), they do not present an immediate threat. There is not a 'self defense' need for a weapon that can easily put a bullet into someone 100 meters away. So the legislation would likely say ANY weapon with a barrel over "x inches" should be restricted.
Similarly, ammunition capacity is often raised. I just saw a statistic today from the Chicago Police Department that their officers only hit their targets 18% of the time with handguns. That is ~1 out of every 5 shots. How many bullets do you need to put into a person before they are no longer a threat? I don't know, but 3 seems like a reasonable number. So reasonable legislation would allow people to easily purchase a handgun with a barrel of less than X inches and a magazine capacity of 15 or fewer bullets.
Ammunition caliber is also important. There are a couple of rifle calibers that are pretty much optimal for killing people. The most common are 5.56mm and 7.62mm. Those are calibers that are accurate out to hundreds of meters. There is no reason for a person to own a weapon "for self defense" that shoots those calibers. There are plenty of handgun calibers that will kill people just fine. So legislation will have to take into account calibers. And restrictions will have to be put in place on ammunition manufacturers to make sure that they are not selling restricted calibers to people who are not licensed to own them.
I am sure as people read this, there are going to be some people who will think, "But you can kill lots of people with handguns too." Sure, of course you can. Again, the idea here is not perfection. Based on a few articles that I have read, there is a measurable difference between a wound caused by a 9mm handgun round, and a 5.56mm rifle round.
I have intentionally been using the term "restricted" and not "banned". I firmly believe in responsible gun ownership. I do not want to deny anyone the privilege of owning and shooting whatever they have proven that they can responsibly own and shoot. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But at the same time, I am not naïve. I know that there are bad people out there who are irresponsible. To pretend otherwise is folly.
For anyone who wants to own a weapon for anything other than self defense, there should be a clear path that is uniform in every state towards ownership. It should include training, registration, testing and insurance. Keep I mind, I am only suggesting this for weapons whose purpose is not strictly self defense. Weapons with high capacity magazines. Weapons accurate at hundreds of meters.
In my own "too extreme" opinion, I would support legislation that provided for criminal liabilities and penalties for gun owners whose weapons are used in mass shootings. For example, I think it would be fair for parents or adult gun owners who fail to prevent a minor from accessing a weapon that is used in a mass shooting to be jailed as if they had killed the people. I do not really think that it is too extreme to expect gun owners to secure their weapons and take reasonable steps to guarantee that they will not be used in violent acts. Like I said, 99% of all gun owners are responsible, so this does not seem unduly burdensome. I think that this is "too extreme" for our society in which individual liberty (and responsibility) is revered. For many voters, I think that holding one person accountable for the actions of another might be too much.
I have also considered whether or not it would be fair to hold families accountable for the actions of a family member. For example, every blood relative (mother, father, brother or sister) of a shooter does jail time. I am less convinced that this is a good idea, given that most shooters are not from stable homes and often times do not care about their families. I do think it might be enough to deter some edge cases though. For example, the kid who has been bullied and wants to kill the bully and his friends. If he knew that his family would suffer because of it, he might think twice.
I realize that I have written a lot, and probably only said a little. If you have read this far, thank you for taking the time out of your life to do that. I hope that you see the seeds for a better and safer society in the words above. I hope that you see that compromise is possible. I hope that you see that I am not against responsible gun ownership. I am not against people having "easy" access to firearms for self defense. I am just a person who has seen too much unnecessary killing, and I am trying to make sense of it. I am a father who has a daughter who will be in school in a few years. I do not understand why people are so opposed to making "assault weapons" (I hate using this term because I know enough gun owners to understand how it is misused) more difficult to obtain.
