I was thinking about this because I'm trying to find some new angle to discuss after the tragic shootings in Las Vegas this past week. I've written previously about how I can't talk about gun control anymore, and the devastation that happens as a result of these attacks, and about how Congress's inaction is largely to blame for the gun violence epidemic in the United States, but I've never really looked at the logic or why behind the arguments that gun advocates seem to espouse. In the wake of yet another tragedy, it's hard not to want to do something to prevent this-the largest act of gun violence in modern American history feels like it should be a wakeup point, but after Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Orlando, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech...it's just impossible to find a new way for me to make my same argument, so I wanted to look at the talking points of gun control advocates, and why this is such a major issue.
According to a 2007 Gallup poll (the earliest I could find when researching this article), 31% of American citizens have never fired a gun in their lives. I find it strange that in the aftermath of all of the mass shootings in the past decade we haven't seen a similar poll conducted by Gallup, but this is the earliest data I can find on the subject. That means 69% of Americans have fired a gun, an overwhelming majority, though I would have to assume that that number has declined as recreational hunting has become less popular in the past few decades. Another important number to consider in this conversation is that 40% of Americans either own a gun or live in a household that has a gun, according to Pew. This isn't a majority, but it isn't an insignificant minority of the American populace.
Part of that population is, well, me. I have certainly fired a gun in my lifetime, growing up in rural Minnesota, and technically do own several guns, though I don't have them in my apartment and never use them (they were inherited). Though I fervently support gun control laws and really have no use for them other then sentimental value (they were given to me by grandfather and great uncle), I do know well enough the importance that hunting and gun culture can play in rural society. I know the "law-abiding citizens" that the NRA and the Republicans frequently counter with, the people who use their rifles as part of tradition, either of hunting or target practice or family rite-of-passage, and for whom the second amendment is an active part of their day-to-day citizenry.
The problem here is that most common sense gun laws wouldn't affect these people, that politicians are espousing are affected by the Democrats' "attack on guns." Let's take for example three of the most common-sense gun laws that are advocated by gun control advocates: a national permit-to-carry, a ban on owning a gun for those convicted of domestic violence or a violent misdemeanor, or the repeal of the PLCAA (the law that largely protects gun manufacturers from a civil suit over their weapons being used in a violent crime...for context, this is the law that got Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton into a huge skirmish during the Democratic Primaries). If you aren't actually a gun manufacturer, have never served prison time, and legally own your gun, the most you're going to have to do with any of these three laws is fill out some paperwork, but studies have shown (and real-life, state-specific examples have bore out) that these laws would reduce gun violence and incentivize gun manufacturers to better implement safety measures.
I genuinely don't understand the logic here, and I wish someone would explain it to me, as I can't find a rational argument against it. Unless you're being a solid advocate for domestic abusers and people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors getting a gun, I don't get why you'd argue in favor of such a thing. You have to fill out paperwork to get your hunting license each year anyway-you're admitting to using a gun through doing that, so if you're frightened about "big brother," he's already through the door, and if you're not-it's just one more form, and it's one you only have to fill out once-per-year (ie not a lot of work). And the gun manufacturers being more responsible for gun violence, particularly when they are not meeting safety requirements, could actually incentivize the industry to reach for better safety precautions surrounding guns, similar to what has been done in the automotive or aviation industries.
Honestly, my biggest problem with the gun control debate is that reason seems to jump out the window the moment people try to talk rationally about it with gun advocates in positions of power. I blame this in part on Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, who have traded in the most hyperbolic of attacks, claiming politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are out to "take all of your guns" without any evidence, and in fact both of these candidates' platforms are pretty welcoming to the second amendment compared with other conversations in the gun debate. It feels so bizarre, for example, that the concept of a mandatory background check is unreasonable, and that there is a loophole that requires someone to sell a buyer a gun if the background check isn't completed on-time. You have to undergo some sort of background check to buy a car, start a business, buy a house, or start a job, and no one seems angry about this-it's just common sense. You can counter that none of those things are required under the constitution, but there are constitutional rights that you have to prove you're legally eligible to exercise. For example, you have a twelfth amendment right to being a presidential elector if you are so chosen, but in order to cast your ballot for the electoral college you have to prove you are a legal citizen of that state and that you are old enough and legally eligible to vote. Therefore, there IS precedent for such a thing as a background check. That there is precedent, that it saves lives, and that it doesn't unreasonably infringe on your constitutional rights should be enough to support background checks and other common-sense gun laws.
Before I close this article, I want to also address the other part of this debate that I feel is silly when it comes up, the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people" as a deterrent in this conversation. First off, you're technically right-a gun doesn't fire by itself, and it needs a human being to pull the trigger. But the same thing could be said for a bomb or a car, though, and we sure as hell put regulations on who and how you can handle those.
Cars are easily the most obvious correlation to guns in this debate, and a pretty easy indicator of what most gun control advocates (not all, but most) would actually like to see happen in the gun debate. Pretty much every American can own a car if they so choose (and can afford one), but there are safety practices put in place to ensure that people who buy, sell, and own a car are doing so in a responsible manner. You cannot drive a car drunk, for example, and cannot operate one until you have reached a certain age. There are laws about how fast you can drive a car, and that you are maintaining all proper safety requirements (like brake lights). You have to register your vehicle regularly (through license plate tabs), and are required to have an ID (a driver's license) to use the vehicle. Manufacturers of cars are required to meet a certain set of safety requirements, and if they don't they are held financially (and potentially criminally) responsible for their actions. If you break these laws, you are punished through fines, jail time, and potentially losing your ability to drive, or at least make your ability to drive harder toe exercise (cars with breathalyzers, whiskey plates, etc).
These laws make fatalities from car accidents far less likely than if they were in place. Safer cars, safer drivers, and tracking who is legally operating a car contributes to the roads being a safer place to exist-study after study shows this to be true. Are people still injured or killed in car accidents? Tragically, yes. Do people still drive drunk or drive at unsafe speeds? Yes, of course. But the number is smaller than if these laws weren't put in place due to deterrents under the law, as many academic studies have shown. The same is true for regulations on everything from flying to prescription drugs, and would be true with common-sense precautions surrounding gun ownership. Yes, criminals may still have access to guns, and no, gun control would not preclude gun violence from ever happening again in the same way that people still get into car accidents. But it would decrease the number of gun deaths in the United States, and we would see less gun violence in our country, perhaps even preventing horrific incidents like what happened at the Mandalay Bay Casino from happening again. That is something we should want and care about, and just offering prayers and condolences isn't enough-we need to take action. If we had a cure to some cancers, but refused to utilize it because cancer is inevitable and it doesn't cure all cancer, we'd look like fools for not accepting it. Gun violence is a cancer, and we have a solution that can help to stem its tide-we need to accept it.
No comments:
Post a Comment