I have mixed feelings about statistics. Sure, they can provide valuable insight, but they can also be manipulated to push an agenda. So when I see headlines like, "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths," I want to know the rest of the story.
But articles take a long time to read, and there are the NBA finals, the fourth season of House of Cards, the gym. Sometimes, I even have to work - not right now, though, and one consistent observation from traveling was that other Westernized countries - especially Australia - do not understand our cultural acceptance of guns. Most of my life, I have taken for granted my support of guns, but being met with such adamant opposition forced me to reevaluate.
Here's what I got:
First, some things I've learned from my semi-extensive Google searching.
The Second Amendment. The battle cry of pro-gunners. And a horrendously written sentence. "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."
Are the "people" in the militia or private citizens? Is the Militia the subject of the sentence? Is the final comma superfluous? Mrs. Gilbert, my seventh grade English teacher, would slap me for writing such a sentence. There's no way it is grammatically correct unless "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is a subordinate clause defining State or Militia.
It reminds me of Emperor's New Groove and the crucial conjunction.
Google search one led me to this article about the mysterious comma.
"Legal scholars do not agree about this comma.* Some have argued that it was intentional and that it was intended to make militia the subject of the sentence. According to these theorists, the operative words of the amendment are '[a] well regulated Militia … shall not be infringed.' Others have argued that the comma was a mistake, and that the operative words of the sentence are 'the right of the people to … bear arms … shall not be infringed.' Under this reading, the first part of the sentence is the rationale for the absolute, personal right of the people to own firearms." A Militia is necessary for the State's security, but individuals have the right to bear arms in order to regulate that Militia and resist a takeover.
Given that America was exiting the Revolutionary War and opposed invasive government and professional armies, as well as the convoluted nature of the sentence under the first interpretation, I support the second interpretation.
Speaking of the founding fathers, a common argument is that the founding fathers were talking about muskets, not guns that could unload at a rate of 100 rounds a minute. True. But could you also argue that the founding fathers believed citizens had a right to have the same weaponry as the federal government to keep the Militia regulated, which 200 years ago was a musket but now includes tanks? I tried half-heartedly to find if there were regulations in the 1700s against owning cannons, but I found none and gave up.
Back to law. Are background checks necessary? For a licensed dealer, background checks are in place and mandatory. This is the full text of what it entails, should you care to know:
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person... yadayadayada... Don't give guns to people who shouldn't have them. * Actual full text below
Of course, there is the classic gun show loophole. This is not a gun show loophole, but a private seller loophole, wherein unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks. A dealer is defined as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." Excluded from this are individuals who "make occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."
Some states have extended the law to apply to some, if not all, private sales.
Next. Guns. Bahhh so many things about guns! So I kept it simple.
The definition of assault rifle can be, as this California example shows, complicated, slightly nebulous, and confusing.
Fully automatic vs semi-automatic. The Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 banned private ownership of automatic weapons manufactured after 1986, and certain states have banned them completely, but by federal law, there is a process in which you can obtain a fully automatic manufactured prior to 1986. There is a lot of red tape, but it can be done.
Semi-automatic, such as the AR-15, fire one round per trigger pull, and when people say they shoot 800 rounds a minute, that is assuming you are pulling the trigger as fast as possible and not having to change magazines (which you do because a magazine only holds up to 30 rounds), so that number is not realistic. Still, you can shoot a crap ton of bullets.
Some questions:
1) Should every seller need to be licensed? Reasonable. However, 1) this can be a state by state decision rather than the federal government 2) it seems costly and difficult to regulate and 3) it will probably result in a stronger black market for guns.
2) Is security worth the small sacrifice of freedom - or the 9/11 argument, stated comedically and convincingly here. At first, this argument was appealing, however, there is a non-sequitur. (Check out my use of a big word. I hope I used it correctly.) Security measures in airports do not attack ownership. In this case, a similar measure would be tightening security to annoying degrees at night clubs, rather than banning ownership of guns.
Random side question: I imagine a lot of anti-gunners are also anti-Trumpers (don't worry, I'm not saying that all pro-gunners are pro-Trumpers). I wonder though, if he were elected and moved to limit gun ownership, if it would be seen as a tyrannical move from an aspiring dictator by those same people. No idea, but a thought - and a reason that the founding fathers protected the right to bear arms.
3) Would enforcing tighter gun laws even make a difference? And would it be worth it?
The US is exempt from this chart because it is an outlier, but the stats show that tighter gun control is not correlated, positively or negatively, with gun related homicides. The chart is from this website, and if you have fifty minutes to listen to this man's podcast while pretending to do work, it's worth the time.
One of his points is how much it would cost to pass and enforce stricter gun control at a federal level, and whether or not the ROI would be worth it. Yes, human life is a return on investment. Seemingly cold, but a necessary calculation when you are dealing with a finite resource - money.
4) What weapons should be legal/illegal? I understand the argument for making assault weapons - whatever falls under that category - illegal, and having no strong desire to have one myself, it wouldn't affect me.
So then I ask, even if banning certain guns was guaranteed to reduce the number of gun fatalities and have a positive ROI*, would I support it?
This is tricky. There's a sliding scale of weaponry, so where do we draw the line? But is that even the question we should be asking? I keep coming back to alcohol, rape, DUIs, and freedom.
Another story that generated immense outrage recently involved university rape. If neither of those individuals had been drinking, would that rape have happened? No. No question - that rape wouldn't have happened if neither of them had access to alcohol, mainly because they probably would have never met.
How many rapes are influenced by alcohol on university campuses? My mental estimates from anecdotal evidence say a lot. A simple way to decrease the number of college rapes - make every campus dry.* It wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it would solve rape influenced by alcohol problem... possibly.
How many drunk driving accidents result in death? There is a simple way to decrease the number of accidents: Tighten drinking laws. Mandate that every manufactured vehicle have a breathalizer that will not allow the car to start if you blow above a .08. Limit drinks/person at a bar to two. Only allow people to drink alcohol in their homes. Only allow people to purchase alcohol at bars or restaurants. Only allow alcohol below a certain percent to be sold. O wait, we tried that.
There is nothing in the Constitution that defends the right to drink alcohol.* While there are tangible benefits of gun ownership (protection), it is hard to find an actual benefit of alcohol, except for the occasional article that touts wine as healthy for the heart, which I tell myself every time I drink a couple glasses. And yet, when you hear of another rape case at a campus party, a girl being killed when she was blackout drunk, or another victim of a DUI, no one is crying, "When are we going to draw the line? When are we going to impose a law because people can't drink responsibly?" Why do we not demand alcohol be banned or tightly restricted?
There's money - there's always money. Just like the gun industry, alcohol generates a whole lot of revenue for a whole lot of people, and putting regulations in place that threaten that revenue stream would be very difficult.
But more than that, culturally, we understand alcohol. Many of us have participated in college parties. Many are able to drink alcohol responsibly (at least we think we can); we see infringement on that right as government overstepping its boundaries.
So no, I don't see why it's necessary to own a collection of AR-15s, just like I don't see why it's necessary to own a wine cellar or a fine bottle of scotch. I don't see why it's necessary to chug a bottle of Jack Daniels, but it's not my place to impose that limit on others, and it's certainly not the government's place.
As an American, I hold strongly to the responsibility and power of the individual. Fundamentally, I, not the government*, am responsible for my safety and the safety of those I love, and, yes, that freedom comes at the cost of idiots who abuse that freedom. But I would rather that than not have freedom.
5) Finally, are these the questions we should be asking? No. The question we should be asking is how do we get our crap together and think differently as a culture. This is an issue I am not qualified to discuss at an expert level, but of course, I still have some quick, non-exhaustive, thoughts.*
Entitlement. Across races, genders, and social classes. Looking to the government to fix our problems is another example of a generation that assumes we are owed something.
Desensitization. The rise of Internet and social media has created a platform where we are able to say what we think without having to deal with real consequences face to face, making it easier for some to dehumanize and devalue life.
Discipline. Among many of their valuable lessons, my parents emphasized that ideas have consequences. That meant I couldn't think and act however I wanted, even if it was within my "right" to do so. This is active, not passive, and it's hard, because my natural inclination is not good - it's evil.* We readily embrace the "freedom" of binge drinking, one night stands, and violence, and then we're surprised by the consequences of not controlling that freedom.
Final thought: I was recently reading about William Wilberforce, the British man who led the abolition of the slave trade in the early 1800s. When he began his "Reformation of Manners," he recognized that, "British culture did not have a biblical worldview and did not regard human beings as being made in God's image and therefore worthy of dignity and respect. This unbiblical view led to every kind of evil," slave trade being the worst. Christians aren't perfect, but Christ's worldview is. He looks through a lens of love and grace, and he sees value in every life. A law cannot force us to do the same.
* Shocker.
* Full text. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
* or actually enforce the underage drinking law
* The first time it appears is when it is banned, a ban that was repealed, essentially because Americans were determined to drink, and banning it led to more violence.
* The government is responsible for the nation's safety from outside forces.
* Mental illness is here, but I don't know where to begin to talk about that with any level of coherence.
* I know, it's hard to think I'm capable of every evil.
