- I support the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, but I'm not sure the market is regulated enough. I don't understand the point of requiring a background check if the purchase is made through a federally licensed gun dealer, but letting anything go if the purchase is made at a gun show or from a private seller. I personally don't see a problem with every legal gun purchase having the same requirements. I wouldn't be opposed to guns being registered similar to automobiles. Is there really any reason for it to be easier to buy a gun than to buy a car? I hear the argument that this will just increase costs for legal gun owners, but it costs me extra to legally own my car too.
- I cannot understand how people on both sides of the argument can't concede that exactly what is meant by the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do pro-gun individuals interpret this to mean that anyone and everyone is entitled to all the guns they want, with no questions asked? Do current laws already overly infringe on an individual's rights to bear arms? Do convicted violent criminals still have that right? And are arms limited to guns? Does the Constitution, if interpreted literally, actually grant the right to more advanced weaponry? Where does the whole "well regulated militia" come in? Do you need to be a registered member of an official state militia to actually have the right? Does the regulation apply to the arms themselves or the individuals bearing the arms or neither?
- I don't like the NRA's proposed solution of an armed security guard in every school. How do we guarantee that a nut job doesn't get hired as the security guard? Assuming the answer is some type of careful screening process, why couldn't something similar be done for gun ownership in general? Or at least for certain types of guns? I don't understand the argument that we can't prevent someone who intends to do harm from getting a gun, but we can prevent someone who intends to do harm from being hired as a school security guard. If it was always obvious who was going to commit these crimes, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
- I don't feel that having a concealed-weapon permit holder at any given shooting guarantees a better outcome. What if there were multiple permit holders who tried to respond? Can you always determine who are the "good" shooters and who are the "bad" shooters? When police arrive, will they be able to distinguish the "good" shooter from the "bad" shooter? Could the stress of the situation cause a "good" shooter to accidentally shoot an innocent? Maybe it's just the way the arguments come across, but some seem to think that doing more to regulate gun ownership will do nothing but having a concealed-weapon permit holder present will solve everything. I don't buy it.
- Like any complex problem, I don't think there is any one solution. As I stated initially, people who wish to legally own guns for their own self defense may help. I believe doing more to ensure weapons don't get into the wrong hands will help. Unfortunately, in a free society such as the one we live in, we will always have these types of incidents to one degree or another. We have before and sadly, I would guess we will again.
- There seems to be a narrative that the country is more violent now than ever. Despite this tragic occurrence, the numbers don't indicate that. Over the last thirty or so years there has been a steady decline in violence. And to say times are more violent now than in the 18th and 19th century is simply not accurate either. Our country's first Secretary of the Treasury was killed in a duel by the Vice-President. Andrew Jackson shot and killed a man in a duel and was involved in several other duels and still went on to become President of the United States. This is a reason I don't really buy into the theory that this is the fault of movies and video games. If that were the case, wouldn't our society be much more violent now than in the past? There could be some impact and for individuals who are already disturbed, maybe a scene in a movie or a video game plays a role, but to make the claim that we live in a more violent society than ever before and that this is because of movies and video games doesn't make sense to me.
- Good decisions rarely result from knee-jerk reactions to specific incidents. Whatever action is taken needs to be carefully thought out and considered.
- I really don't like when I feel pro-gun activists refuse to even allow tighter gun control measures on the table for negotiation. How do we know that there's isn't a law that could be enacted or that increased enforcement of existing laws couldn't help prevent another such incident? What if requiring a mental health evaluation to purchase a gun would prevent one such incident every 5 years? Would it be worth it? I don't know what will work and what won't work, but it seems anything that may help should at least be on the table for discussion. Sometimes I feel the thinking is "well nothing we do is going to prevent all incidents so we might as well do nothing."
- Finally, for those that argue vehemently for gun rights, please use intelligent arguments and legitimate data. I think as much as anything, what has pushed me more to the left on this issue are the trite, straw-man arguments in favor of gun ownership. For example, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" or variations. I've never heard anyone claim that guns, by themselves, anthropomorphize and kill individuals by themselves. More often than not, when a person murders another person, it is with a gun and those who argue for tighter gun control simply feel that more could be done to keep guns out of the hands of those who intend to do harm to others. Another I don't care for "Cars kill more people than guns do". For one, I don't think comparing accidental deaths to intentional deaths is a valid comparison. Secondly, cars are heavily regulated. Annual inspections and registrations are required. Everyone who operates a car has to be licensed. We have all kinds of speeding and other traffic laws and law enforcement officers specifically dedicated to enforcing compliance with those laws. I've seen a couple of variations of "drug laws works so well, let's have tighter gun laws" (I believe sarcasm is intended). That logic could be extended to argue against any and all laws. We have DUI laws but people still drive drunk. We have speeding laws, but people still speed. We have laws against robbery and murder and people still do those things. I guess I just don't understand the argument. So we just eliminate all laws, give everyone a gun, and see how things pan out? Finally, several pro-gun arguments seem to be arguing against a ban on guns (with arguments such as "if we take away everyone's guns, only criminals will have guns"), which I don't see anyone calling for.
Ok, now tell me everything I've said that's wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment