This Gun Stuff

Ok, as I've said over and over here, sometimes I just write here so I can process things and get them out of my system.  Often there's something that I'd instinctively want to post on Facebook, but it would either be oversharing or the start of a firestorm if I did, so it just digs away at me until I have the proper outlet.  Right now, it's all of the gun stuff in the news.  I will reiterate--I'm not posting this here to get in an argument or have someone tell me I'm wrong--I'm just sharing my thoughts on it because it's frustrating to me and I want to get all my thoughts in one place--and hopefully out of my head a bit more.  My own dad will disagree with most of what I write here, but again--it's eating away at me and rather than let out my rage on my handful of Facebook friends who have been non-stop posting stuff about this lately, it's going here.

A little over a month ago 17 teenagers died from gun violence at a high school in Florida.  A few weeks after that another shooting happened in Maryland, where two kids were injured, but one of them eventually passed away.  The stories just keep adding up, and 19 years after the first big newsworthy school shooting at Columbine High School, things have only gotten worse.  Elementary school kids, college students, school and corporate employees have all been added to the victim lists.  It's terrible and tragic.  And yes, gun violence in our cities, teenage suicides, and texting while driving are all also very deadly to many of these same populations and should ALSO be receiving a lot of attention.  Absolutely.  And has this become a giant political issue, to a fault?  Absolutely.  But I don't think that makes it any less important to tackle this problem, along with all the others.

I think what makes this issue so important right now is that we're all realizing that it CAN happen to any of us.  Where it once seemed like, "That could never happen here," we hear all of the survivors say that they thought the same thing.  So clearly it CAN happen here.  It just takes one lunatic, no matter how small the town or how many drills the school runs.  We force our kids to go to school because that's what's best for them, but all too many times it has turned out to be a death sentence.  That shouldn't be the case.  I mean, shootings of the innocent are tragic no matter where they happen, but when we're telling kids that school is the best place for them, that it's safe and important for them to be there, and then they get shot, that just seems wrong.  So of course we want to do something about it.

In regard to the marchers this past weekend, I do admire them.  I don't know if it will really go anywhere, but it's worth a shot at this point.  This isn't about snowflakes or idiots who eat Tide Pods now wanting to change the Constitution.  They're just kids who don't want to fear for their lives at school.  Are there bandwagon jumpers?  Sure.  Do I think half the kids at school walk-outs were just in it for the time out of class?  You bet.  But there is a genuine fear in this country and I can't imagine what that's like for those kids.  So I'm not judging those who are legitimately up for a fight.  Just because kids can make really stupid decisions, it doesn't mean that they are incapable of having valid feelings or ideas.  Some people think it's wrong to question the second amendment, but they're trying to strip these kids of their first amendment right to free speech, so that's not right either.  People I really respect are posting some really stupid, offensive, bullying stuff on Facebook right now about the protestors, and it really bugs me.  They're kids, first of all.  Second, your argument sounds ridiculous when you name-call and belittle their argument on really petty points.  I'm not saying the other side hasn't had some missteps of their own, but why rag on kids that are trying to make some positive change?

Oh, wait, it's because your guns are more important than them.  Look, I get it.  The second amendment has been in place forever and we need to be armed so the government doesn't overthrow us.  Because that's really likely.  Sure.  At what point in modern history have we ever needed a well-regulated militia?  And when did anyone say we want all guns?  In most cases people are not looking to take all guns.  They want to remove the high capacity ones that can kill a lot of people in a few minutes.  There is no need for a military-style weapon to be in the hands of civilians.  By all means, let's keep them in the hands of our military and law enforcement, but normal people do not need to buy these.  You're not going to carry them around in public in the event you run into a mass shooting, nor do you need that much firepower to defend your home.  If we need to keep them available, let's keep them secure at gun ranges so they can still get their sport shooting in, but seriously...why does your desire to have those sorts of guns available outweigh my innocent kid's right to feel safe at school?  There's nothing wrong with changing laws to make getting these weapons much, much harder, at the very least.

But then only the bad guys will have the guns.  Yes, I know.  But again, no one is carrying theirs around with them on a daily basis to ward off mass shootings, and it would seem criminals aren't taking them to home invasions because they like to travel light.  So there are two scenarios happening here. 1) These guns are all over the inner city--or so it would seem.  The anti-gun control folks are right--criminals do not follow the laws.  Those guns will be there pretty much no matter what we do.  It's sad that innocent people die because of them, but so many of the deaths are people that are actively involved in gang violence killing each other.  If they won't listen to reason or laws, we almost have to let them figure it out for themselves--which may mean that they will eventually, in essence, make themselves extinct.  I'm not sure what other options we have.  But those guns don't seem to be the ones making it to the school shootings in the suburbs, which brings me to scenario #2) Most of these school shooters bought their weapons legally, or stole them from someone who obtained them legally.  And if laws were changed, those guns wouldn't be available to them.  Maybe then the awkward white kid would go into the inner city to find the gang member and buy one from him, but I haven't seen that happen yet, so I don't know.  I read an interesting point the other day, that if these guns were made illegal, their price on the black market would skyrocket and possibly make them too expensive for these kids.  Not a bad thought.  And in the absence of those guns, they'd probably use one with less capacity.  It could still kill, but the toll would be smaller.  Baby steps, I guess.

Oh, and to another point--if there are no guns people will use bombs or trucks or whatever.  Yes, that's true, but that doesn't mean we give up trying to get rid of one option at a time.  The thing is, trucks, knives, crow bars, and everything that makes a bomb have other more prominent uses.  Guns, on the other hand, kill.  They can hunt, yes, and they can be fun to shoot, but again, neither of those things should override human safety.  High capacity weapons aren't necessary for either of those things.  Banning certain guns only impacts shooting, whereas trying to ban those other things isn't really logical.  But, in case people have forgotten, regulations were put into place for purchasing large amounts of fertilizer after Oklahoma City and we haven't seen anything like that since.  Since we can't ban all guns, let's just try to lessen the impact as much as we can for now.

Opponents also think that we need to blame the person, not the gun.  The gun enables that person to do what they want to do, at a higher volume than they would be able to do it otherwise--at least 95% of the time.  In a perfect world we'd want to fix the problems that make that person want to shoot the gun, but here's the thing: fixing a lifetime of mental issues isn't instantaneous.  It takes years to do that.  So how do we impact things now?  We make their easy weapon of choice harder to get.  While we give them mental health treatment.  But the other problem with this is that the conservatives keep trying to take away opportunities for health coverage that can help mental health.  We need kids to stop bullying, we need people to treat others with respect, we need to lessen the desensitization that comes from violent imagery (and for the record, I don't think that's the problem for everyone, but I do think certain people are more highly impacted by it).  But in the short term, we need less access to dangerous weapons.

I think what frustrates me most about the anti-gun control folks is the constant use of logical fallacies.  In my freshman year of college, I took a philosophy class called Critical Thinking.  I suppose I never knew how much impact that class had on me until now.  All that keeps popping into my head every time I hear these arguments are the fallacies I learned about back then.  There's the slippery slope, where taking away certain guns will lead to all guns being taken away.  The appeal to tradition would infer that just because the second amendment had a purpose then, that it's still completely relevant today.  I don't even want to dig into the rest, but there are so many instances: Trying to point out the irony of the left's support of abortion that kills thousands, or bringing up the Tide Pods, or any other invalid, illogical argument that they constantly use to distract from the fact that guns are killing people in unlikely places.  We don't need that level of weapon and common sense legislation wouldn't infringe on their rights...but since the left is pushing it, God forbid they give an inch.

At a family gathering this weekend I got into a bit of a discussion with family that leans farther right, and they compared it to cars that go 200 mph.  If used to their full potential they will have a high likelihood of killing someone.  Do people have the right to own one?  Should they exist at all?  I honestly feel like there's no need for a car to go that fast.  As far as the right to own one?  I guess I don't know because (again) I don't feel like it's necessary for them to even have that capacity.  If someone is going to be responsible and only use it in a safe environment, I guess I don't care.  But the fact of the matter is that there are very few safe places for that to happen, so why bother having one?  If someone is going to be irresponsible, then no, I don't think their right to own one should overshadow my right to safety in my own neighborhood.  So, needless to say, their argument didn't really sway me.  In addition, I later realized (of course) that even among "bad" owners, car owners generally wouldn't want to kill someone with their car, but "bad" gun owners do.  So even then it's not a logical comparison.  The point is trying to keep a dangerous weapon out of the hands of someone looking to hurt others, and I'd feel that way whether it was a car or a gun.

The biggest problem in all of this is that everyone is seeing the extremes and immediately assuming that everyone on the other side is that extreme.  The left thinks everyone on the right is a Trump-loving, gun-toting Neo-Nazi.  Everyone on the right thinks the left wants to strip away ALL of their guns, rewrite the entire Constitution, and let the government overtake their unarmed constituents.  No one wants to take the time to realize that a lot of us closer to the middle just want to either seriously limit access to guns (like, lots of training, lead time, and mental health checks), or if we're going to eliminate anything, we'd be fine with just the high capacity stuff that no citizen needs for reasonable self-defense or hunting.  I'm cool working on mental health and better parenting and less bullying in the meantime, but in the short term until that stuff has time to take hold, we need to do what we can to find common ground to limit access.  And if you're a reasonable, safe, mentally sound, responsible gun owner, you should have no reason to be concerned.

Oh, and one last note.  I'm actually sort of disappointed in how things have played out with the Parkland kids.  On one hand, I'm seriously against all of the bullying that the right has thrown at them.  Name calling, spreading lies, and creating fake news and deceptive memes is all completely uncalled for.  Adults should not be doing that stuff to kids.  But on the other hand, I'm also a bit disappointed in some of the kids and concerned for their futures.  First, it's a bit contradictory, or at the very least short-sighted, to be rallying against guns when you were among the people who bullied the kid enough to drive him (at least in part) to turn to gun violence to get his revenge.  At the very least have some remorse and use the platform to rally kids to stop bullying, too.  Second, I also think it's a little dangerous to look to teenagers as a guiding voice in a huge issue like this.  I do think their story needs to be heard, but these are kids (you know, the ones whose brains aren't fully developed yet) and I see a few concerns:

1) Getting involved in adult affairs without really understanding the depth of the issues or some of the implications can really complicate things beyond what teenagers can comprehend.  I guess it's stuff like advertising boycotts and digging into legislation, much of it on the basis of emotion.  We're dealing with grown-up stuff with grown-up implications that are far beyond what they're used to as they walk through high school halls.  I think they have an important voice, but there's something to be said for life experience and maturity in framing arguments and understanding consequences.

2) Teenage impulsivity could lead to them saying or doing something really stupid that will either undermine their credibility (giving the other side more ammunition) or deal a blow to the entire campaign.  Don't give the other side talking points by impulsively shooting off your mouth in the heat of the moment, or getting caught doing something contradictory. 

3) Someone like David Hogg is really putting himself in the crosshairs--quite literally considering his opponents--and could be putting himself in danger.  Some of these kids also don't understand the impact this stuff could have on their futures.  Some people will consider them heroes, but others will stonewall them hardcore, and I think it's hard to understand the implications of this stuff now.  I can also see some of this stuff going to their head, and this would be quite the head trip for a teenager to deal with.  They better get some good therapy throughout this ordeal, because I can see the letdown afterward being rough, or the self-importance messing with them down the road. 

This sort of stuff really appropriate for kids to have to be dealing with.  It would be a lot for a well-grounded adult, let alone a kid that's just been through a traumatic event.  I give them credit for putting themselves out there, but maybe the adults around them should be guiding and protecting them a bit more.  They shouldn't be used as a tool for your agenda--for either side.

This argument has so many angles and I know I haven't covered them all, which is why I'm asking for no arguments to come from this.  I'm sick of everyone finding the one tiny loophole in everyone else's argument and jumping all over it.  I just did this to get it all out of my system.  There are valid points on each side but we need to find common ground to prevent this stuff from continuing to happen.  I think each side has to give a little for the greater good of society.  Holding extreme positions will get us nowhere.  We'll only start to agree when the point of view is just close enough to our own that we can start to see the ounce of good in it and build from there.  I don't know how to fix this, but for my kids' sake, I hope we can get somewhere.  I think this is good momentum, and if people would only get their heads screwed on straight, we can make our country a safer place for everyone.