Discussion - Gun Control: No "Silver Bullet"

Gun Control, Proposed Solutions and The Issues

Post-Sandy Hook there has been an increased discussion nationwide about guns and the warrants of any legislative action on gun violence. While Democrats and Republicans debate about the proper solutions there is an ever-growing list of potential solutions and with that comes a list of potential issues as well as known issues. The solutions to the problem of gun violence in America may not be found in any single piece of legislation; as members of Congress and state legislators work to pass sweeping legislation their attempts could be futile. What follows is a copy of a discussion I had with a registered republican about the issues pertaining to gun control. For privacy reasons we've changed the name and some of the discussion. 

Anonymous - Gun laws have been tried and tested in certain areas in the past, take Chicago for example, and the results haven't been good. Here's an example: http://bit.ly/V50928

Me - This is part of the greater issue. Chicago is merely one city inside a larger state (Illinois) and an even larger country (United States) and an even larger world. Laws that Chicago passes will have a minimal to zero effect because they can never stop guns coming in from across city lines. Even in the case of New York City who recently enacted stricter gun laws it won't make as much difference unless the federal government and other states take similar action. But when things are uniform that means it's far harder for criminal and would-be criminals to obtain the banned weapons. Most everyday criminals would likely give up in their pursuit to obtain an illegal weapon and either settle for a smaller weapon or give up altogether. Will they still be able to approach a "black market" dealer from Mexico to obtain a gun? Yes absolutely but reality is that the path from inception to getting the gun will be that much harder. This further highlights my point that we need to also push for uniform international law when it comes to guns. Or at least a tightening of our borders. That's something even Republicans agree and want: tighter borders and enforcement of laws on the books already. Here's an example of that point: http://bit.ly/S3eqgT

It's essentially the same principal as locking your car. Most criminals are deterred by a locked door and at that point give up. If a criminal is really determined he's going to break into your car no matter what right? But by locking your vehicle you'll set an alarm system (depending on how new your car is ) that will alert others to his presence and hopefully deter him or catch him.
The notion that because "criminals will break the law regardless so it's pointless to pass new gun laws" is in that way naive. If that were true, then why have any laws? Why have seatbelt laws? Why have laws pertaining to required license and registration for driving? Insurance? Why have health standards for restaurants?   

But to be clear _______ I don't think the solution is so much in banning guns as it is in looking at mental health and illness. I think Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines need to be examined and perhaps other minor improvements but beyond that guns should be left alone

Anonymous -  Now see I look at it like this: If the police have guns then we should have the same guns as them to help protect us in the time of need. If the government decides to come after us, this is just a "what-if?" scenario, then we should have the weapons to protect ourselves...including assault weapons. If the police and military can have assault weapons why can't we have them? Take the movie "Red Dawn" for example, If a powerful nation tries to come across our borders and take control they could have minimal opposition, especially if there are databases and records that detail who has a gun and where they live, such as county records. How do we protect ourselves against that?

I also agree with you on the mental illness crisis that is going on in this country. But where do we draw the line when it comes to combating the problem? What classifies as having a mental illness? Is it going to see the psychiatrist every 2-3 days a week or is it having stage one dementia? This hits home with a lot of crowds because they have relatives who are older that have mental problems. Another issue is these people don't want their guns taken away from them, and they won't give them up willingly. Also they may refuse to see a shrink. But we do need to update how we handle people with a mental illness and the solutions to these problems. It's unbelievable how much mental illness goes on in the nation today. If you look at the past three major shootings these guys were crazy. Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora. Potentially Sandy Hook. So we need to push more mental illness than gun control, I believe, firstly and then gun control. Let's give it some time to come into effect for 2-3 years. But mental illness needs to be dealt with now. 

Me - I've always been of the belief that our government is one "of the people, by the people and for the people." By most definitions the American government is a representative democracy: or one made up by the citizens. The idea, when founded, was that farmers and factory workers would suspend their day jobs for a time (2-4-6) years dependent on what office they ran for and assist in running the country. After such term they would resign and go home and live under the laws they created. Today that is not the case. We have "career" politicians that have been in office for 30+ years. This is good and bad. I won't go into that but the gist of what I'm trying to get at is that our government, and that includes the military, is made up of citizens. So by technical terms it is impossible for the government to turn against the people. This isn't true in other countries. Egypt for example is made up of the military and is controlled by the military leader, who was not "elected" to his position but rather appointed to it. Here in America our leaders are really elected and not appointed (minus Supreme Court Justices and so on) I believe to an extent we (civilians) should have similar weapons to the authorities. However I'm of the belief that there should be common sense restrictions on those weapons (background checks, modifications to clip capacities as well as automatic-semiauto and so on). This ensures that in the event of a riot or a gathering of people that don't necessarily represent the entire general public things aren't out of control.To be blunt, and no offense is intended by this by any means, I think it's insane to believe that if the United States military couldn't stop whatever foreign power from invading that it's unlikely "Uncle Jim and Cousin Bob" with their AK-47s can stop them. Movies today like to oversimplify that scenario because in our minds (mine included; I always wanted to be James Bond) that is possible! I cannot think of one case in history though where everyday citizens stopped a foreign nation from invading when the national military failed to. There are Military coupes sure, but that's different because the force tasked with protecting the people turned at the whim of a dictator. In America the likelihood of that happening is second to none considering our system of checks and balances. For example there's a lot of fear mongering about Obama becoming a dictator and coming for your guns. His cabinet as it stands today consists of a multitude of men and women from varying backgrounds and political beliefs. It's inconceivable to think that Obama would be able to carry out his "master plan" unchecked by his cabinet. For example again, if the cabinet and/or the Vice President feels the president is overstepping his bounds and needs a "break" they can intervene and send him/her on vacation. Beyond the executive branch there's the judicial and the legislative. So while Obama can issue executive orders, the Congress can pass laws checking those executive orders if it so chooses, and furthermore the Supreme Court can tell the executive it's actions are unconstitutional and thus instruct states not to listen. Really, our founding fathers thought this stuff through. It's remarkable. 

There will always be weapons the police and military has that everyday civilians like you or I will not have access to. I don't care who you are I don't think you should have a nuclear weapon at your home (for example). Drones, Land-Air missiles, F-17, etc are all examples of these types of things. Its hard to imagine anyone with their AR-15 stopping any of these things. I guess the best reasoning I can immediately think for why we shouldn't have the same weaponry as the military and police is the issue of accountability. In the military and police force an officer is subject to review and punishment by their respective superiors. In society you wouldn't be subject to that. Who would stop you from using your AK on someone? Who would stop you from utilizing your nuclear weapon on the neighbor who's dog keeps shitting on your yard? These are extreme cases, yes, but the factor of some peoples' mental instability comes into play. I personally don't like variables. When I do something I like it to be mostly planned out to limit and prevent any surprises. Allowing civilians to hold the same weaponry that military and police forces have leaves a lot to risk, and I think the dangers are more than the benefits. I've met and heard of a lot of people that given their history and attitude I wouldn't want to be holding a gun. Remember, that while we have a right to keep and bear arms I also have rights and perhaps in cases your right to keep and bear arms intrudes upon my rights? What then? The solution is complex. I think, as we've done, weapons that are typically military-style like the M-16 and AR-15 should be de-militarized and outfitted for civilian use. This means it's only able to fire one round at a time. Pretty much this is standard (minus black market weaponry) so that's not an issue we can really address further. However if you look at what Adam Lanza (the shooter at Sandy Hook) did was he used a civilian version of the AR-15 and though it could only fire a round at a time used high capacity clips capable of holding 30+ rounds. Thus he could fire 30 rounds off as quick as he could pull the trigger.For mental illness and mental health the issues become even more complex. During the Reagan years we did away with mental institutions but didn't allow for a plan or funding to take care of these people. Thus they're thrown on the streets and today many who are homeless have a mental condition. I think the issue of mental problems in America can be combated in a couple ways. First and foremost is working to reduce and remove the stigma that comes with having a mental illness. An example of this problem is when people have depression, they may know they have it, but are afraid to come forward about their problem and seek help because of the reaction from society. Following my car accident two years ago, burdened with 300,000+ in bills and a gaping wound in my stomach I felt times where I was suicidal. When I slightly mentioned this to my parents their response was to possibly lock me up if I continued to talk about it. That's the example of the problem we should work to solve. Beyond that it's making the treatment of many of these conditions affordable. For most problems these days we can either eliminate it or manage it with medication but many do not seek out that solution because the costs are too high. So we should work to find real solutions to that problem as well. When it comes to older people who don't believe anything is wrong with them, yet clearly there is something wrong with them, we should allow for certain societal restrictions to be placed. Similar to driving, when they fail to meet certain standards their license would be taken away from them and it is then beholden upon family to ensure they don't drive. The same with guns. I think the period to renew your gun permits (concealed carry, hunting, etc) should be every year or so. Conditions change so rapidly. If/when the licenses are revoked it would be the responsibility of the family to ensure they don't utilize weapons in the public unless supervised. Much like a child. While it may sound harsh and mean, it's really the only feasible way of doing this. Those are two solutions that I can think of immediately. I'm sure there are more as well. Now the conundrum is then the matter of "Who are you to tell me I can't have a gun?" And the answer to that would be if they're a threat to society we as a society are empowered to ensure they don't threaten others. 

There are solutions beyond guns and mental health still. We should allow for comprehensive databases that alert authorities to "at risk" individuals who have a condition or are unstable. We should continue to enforce the laws and update systems to make it feasible to conduct background checks and such so that we know that the guy who went down to Olde West and bought an AR-15 is not some nut-job with a history of violence. Should someone with a history of domestic abuse be allowed to own a gun? That's an issue that should be addressed. But like any problem the first step in solving it is allowing a substantive debate on the issues. Both sides use fear mongering to stop this, and that's not right. At the very least we should be allowed to talk about these issues. 

Closing Remarks

The above discussion took place on January 16th at 1:00am on Facebook. Unfortunately it was cut short due to time constraints. Give us your thoughts on the discussion and if you have a point of view to offer we are eager to post what you have to say. In addition we will continue to post more discussions on guns and other hot topics as they come available.