Rethink gun laws, NOW!


ar-151

AR 15 is not needed by John Q. Public

The carnage and incomprehensible violence that happened in Connecticut shocked the nation and brought the topic of gun control to the nation’s attention. The correlation between the senseless slaughter of those beautiful elementary kids and guns are a natural response by all that have a moral foundation in peace and love. In reflection of the tragedy, the collective WE all demanded that “assault weapons” be banned and called for the re-institution of the loophole riddled assault weapons ban.

The CT shootings led to everyone shouting from the rooftops about the need to regulate or even outlaw certain “assault weapons” as a cure to the evil that happened at Sandy Hook. The event actually left me quite numb and to be honest, I am still quite numb in many ways about that inhuman mass shooting. With that being said, I dare to say that no matter how tragic that shooting is the reality is that it has very little to do with just gun ownership. It has to do with a lack of gun regulations in terms of nozzle velocity, firing capacity  and gun insurance.

I assert that the proponents of gun laws are taking the wrong stance. The arguable connection between the horrible event at Sandy Hook and “assault weapons” only feeds the argument of those on the gun-side that contend that “the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”. The connection between guns and the horrific mass shooting is as contaminating as the belief that “the answer to gun violence is more guns”; both are wrong-headed.

The two opposing positions are equally poisoning the topic of gun regulations by posturing, hyperbole, division, and political demagoguery. Appealing to the other sides sense of good morality on the subject of guns will only harden their stance in opposition of yours.  The problem lies in the fact that we naturally oppose that which we do not already agree with and this is a matter of human nature.

As Stanford University psychologist Leon stated A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted right to guns. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted gun rights. One can relate this to the theory of “fight or fleet”; this holds true with predators and data. Relating mass shootings to the need for gun control weakens the argument somewhat. America needs to look at gun regulation/control at the level of what is at the bare minimum level of responsibility that all gun owners should accept.

With that assertion, we need a new approach to the discussion of guns and gun violence in America. The debate should not be centered on or around whether or not guns are the root cause of the multiple mass shootings in America. The debate should not be centered on or around the question of are guns the cause or just the instrument of mass shooting. It should be centered on the fact that America does not have a national regulatory approach to gun ownership and this a moral and nation failure of government.

No one, with even a minuscule of common sense, can deny that guns have a single and undeniable purpose; to kill or destroy something; hell anything that it is pointed at. Guns with high firing capacities are made for the same purpose, but on a grander scale and with uglier results. This is an inarguable fact and yet we do not regulate what types guns can be owned by an individual in any meaningful way, nationally.

America doesn’t have a national database of how many weapons are owned by an individual, yet we can easily verify what car everyone has; all the way down to the year, make, model, and VIN number (comparable to serial numbers for guns). Does this make sense?

Glock17

Glock17

American does not require training for such weapons of death, destruction, and protection, but does require such proof of proficiency of car ownership along with annual renewal of registration and license. Does this make sense?

America does not require “mandated” registration of every point of sale of guns, but does require this of every car sold and transferred. Does this make sense?

America does not require a minimum safety measures for every gun sold, but does require air bag in every car made in America. Does this make sense?

America does not require gun owners to be insured and yet, it does require that every person who has a car must have a “bare minimum” of liability insurance. Does this make sense?

It is time that America made sense when it comes to gun ownership. It is time that American treated the gun ownership with the same level of required responsibility that we foist on John Q. Public when it comes to owning a vehicle.

It is time that the America require responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. The right  to own a gun should be adjoined with responsibility to own a gun. It is time to disconnect the mass shootings from the gun rights and look at the fact that gun ownership should also require that all guns be registered, licensed, insured, and all that own them should display a level of proficiency. We ask no less of vehicle ownership; it is time that America require at least that much responsibility for something as serious as gun ownership.

After all, a car is only dangerous when it is not used as intended, but guns are tragically and irreversibly dangerously when used exactly as it is intended. Guns only serve one purpose; to kill, damage, or destroy whatever it is pointed at. Rethink gun laws (or a lack thereof), NOW!

Advertisements
  1. Joseph
    February 11, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    I love what what Guy posted in reply to you on Google+, so I added it here for your blog man.

    Guy Gordon:
    Agreed that the double standards of these things are very weird. I think the double standard between marijuana and cigarettes/alcohol are equally weird. Different laws made by different people with different agendas.

    The big differentiation to consider with your car vs gun argument is that the vast majority of the population drives a car, even if they don’t own one. They also drive other people’s cars (rentals, friends). And they typically use them every day. I’m not disagreeing with your comparison, because I think it’s perfectly valid. Just that when you have something like cars which, even with all the regulation, result in somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 deaths each day in the country (never mind injuries), it’s hard to directly argue the results of such regulation. The flipside to that is that soon gun deaths may likely surpass vehicle death numbers, and given the much smaller subset of users and frequency of use, very much argues for having measures that are AT LEAST as comprehensive as vehicle regulation.

    And that is as far as I take my 2 cents on the topic. I’m no expert. I’m not an extremist on either side of the argument. I agree with some of the folks’ argument points, and disagree with others, on both sides. I don’t see either side coming to any sane compromise because the divisive nature of the argument seems to make people unbelievably polar towards every single thing the other side says. In other words, it’s similar to EVERY FRICKIN’ THING EVERY NATIONAL POLITICIAN DOES OR SAYS ANYMORE. Which is why I simply stopped wasting my time paying attention to it. I find far more enjoyable things to utterly and completely waste my time on…

    BTW, do you actually proof read things you post to that blog? It seems like it. I recommend trying that when posting things to other sites. :)

    • June 25, 2013 at 8:17 pm

      Yes, Guy, i proofread my blogs before publishing them and will apply this approach to all things i write. You make a valid point about proofing.

      In regards to the gun debate, I too find it amazing that both sides have such a ridiculously partisan approach to the subject. I think that compromise is that everyone can own (given they have the mental capacity to so so) as long as they demonstrate a respect and sense of responsibility that comes with gun ownership.

      Thanks for your two cents on the matter (by the way you should spell out all numbers under 10) and keep it coming. You added a great deal to the subject.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: