Here at AFSL, I've tried to avoid too much political discussion. I usually do most of that on Facebook, quick and easy. After all, I barely have time these days to discuss truly important topics like sports and music, why add another millstone around my neck? However, I feel it is my duty to take a moment and express my concern and disdain for the current debate regarding gun laws. No, I do not oppose reasoned and informed discussion, as that is one of the most important aspects of a functioning democracy, as well as one of my personal favorite pastimes. I do, however, find it exceptionally cringeworthy (not to mention nausea-inducing) when platitudes and invective enter into the discussion to replace cooperation and veracity. The gun debate has become an epicenter of misinformation. Of all the Amendments to the Constitution, only the 2nd Amendment seems to inflame such disagreement and passion. It is not suggested daily that the 1st or 5th Amendments be revisited, after all. I must admit to a certain bias in the following screed, so consider this nothing more than an editorial.
 |
| The Fecalator and a fan. |
First, I'd like to briefly examine that argument that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." This is patently absurd, as there is not a politician from any party who is suggesting outlawing guns. This is a fiction established by the NRA to create fear and paranoia, which happens to be a perfect environment to sell more guns. An October 2015 article from factcheck.org examined a claim made by Donald Trump, current Republican Presidential nominee and endorsee of the National Rifle Association, that Pres. Obama was planning to sign an executive order that would order our "guns taken away." Not only is Trump clearly eloquent, he's simply wrong (or lying). I have posted the full article below*, but to paraphrase, Obama has stated that he "respects gun rights" and that gun confiscation would be "impossible". The only law regarding gun confiscation that is on the books currently allows gun confiscation from perpetrators of domestic violence. There is no instance of President Obama suggesting mass confiscation. An extension of this utterly ridiculous talking point employed by ammosexuals and NRA members is that we don't need gun laws because criminals wouldn't follow those laws, anyhow. If we follow that logic, why do we need any laws at all? What makes this talking point more disingenuous is that Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly that they understand precisely how laws restricting access to a good or service lessens the proliferation of that good or service. This is exactly why they have put so much effort into creating restrictive abortion laws across the South, shutting down clinics and enforcing "waiting periods". Simply put, by decreasing access to an item, less people are able to obtain that item. Here, Obama lays it out more eloquently than I possibly could:
I cannot speak for anyone else, but guns make me nervous. I feel less safe when they are around, not safer. That said, the idea of a "good guy with a gun" appeals to me, and I absolutely understand the desire for an individual to carry a gun for self-security or the protection of their family and property. I do not endorse or condone the complete overturn of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure anyone does.
There also exists an argument that those with "evil in their hearts" would find a way to commit atrocities regardless of whether they have guns or not. That may be true, so why should we make it easier for them to commit those atrocities by arming them with efficient killing tools? Yes, I said it, and I confess it: a gun is merely a tool. A tool that was designed for killing, and it is a very well-designed and effective tool. I have heard it argued at least a few dozen times, that perhaps we should outlaw cars since so many people die in car crashes each year, far more than die in gun violence. Despite that fact that, again, no one is trying to "outlaw" guns, cars are not designed to kill people. In fact, cars are engineered to minimize the loss of life if they are used improperly. Guns are engineered to maximize the loss of life if they are used properly. Surely, any person who is genuinely attempting to recognize that difference can easily do so. Maybe a maniac would try to build a bomb, or go on a stabbing spree? Again, all these uses entail the misuse of materials that are intended for other purposes. Guns, when used properly, take casualties. That is their sole purpose. The NRA is correct, a gun cannot intend to commit murder, people do that themselves, but guns are the tool best suited for the job. It is their purpose. Am I repeating myself?
Finally, I've got to ask: why has the NRA pushed so hard to restrict research into the area of gun violence? Are they afraid of what we might find out? Here is an article discussing the dearth of research into gun violence, and how it is stifling action in Congress. It disturbs me greatly to think there are people who are content to simply allow this pandemic of gun violence continue unabated. It is understandable to have differences on how to solve the problem, but to refuse to acknowledge the problem is foolish at best, sinister at worst. We live in a society where, unfortunately, we have become accustomed to serious violence on an almost weekly basis. The events in Turkey this week are spurning the International community to finally say enough is enough. We are tired of violence, and we need to take action. How and why are we unable to make the same decision domestically?
