, so I thought I would copy and paste it to my blog. The text is below.
"What I’ve only realized lately is the extent to which the sacralization
of guns by the gun lobby has made it nearly impossible to have a sober,
data-based public conversation about gun policy—blocking even the
collection of data on gun violence, as Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy
Center explained here last month."
And I would say that the antics on the liberal side are just as
detrimental to "sober, data-based conversation" as anything the
conservatives can muster. Look, when you have a man like
Piers Morgan on
national television hollering like a snarky little chimp and shouting
over his pro-gun guests, it reflects poorly on him. When you have this
same type of condescension of nearly every article I've read and nearly
every news report on it from the mainstream media (c.f. the Huffington
Post), it reflects poorly on the movement.
I also agree that the shootings in Newtown, Aurora, etc. were tragic.
I feel sincerely bad for the people who lost relatives and friends in
those shootings. I hope that I never have a similar experience. At the
same time, the rational creature inside of me is resistant to passing
sweeping, knee-jerk legislation in response to those incidents. I want
to discuss ideas that actually MEAN something, not just throw around
buzz words and ideas that will have no effect on the problem.
Specifically, I would be refreshed if even one person in favor of gun
control would admit to the fact that the laws being discussed in
congress currently would NOT have prevented either the Aurora or Newtown
shootings and are VERY UNLIKELY to decrease future gun violence. The
guns for Aurora were all obtained legally by someone with no history of
mental illness. The guns for Newtown were obtained through murder. In
both cases, none of the gun law currently on the books or being
discussed would have had any effect on the ability of the evil lunatics
that perpetrated these shootings to obtain the weapons used.
In fact, it is highly unlikely that any measures short of a total
confiscation and ban of firearms would have prevent such incidents from
happening in the future, and even that is far from certain. For one
thing, there are 300 million guns currently in this country. Considering
how successful the government has been at stopping things like drugs
and illegal immigrants from entering the country, my faith in their
ability to track and confiscate weapons is non-existent. Secondly, this
is assuming that the general public, congress, and the courts would even
allow such a move. Like it or not, the second amendment is a prominent
part of the constitution, and citizens overwhelmingly reject the idea of
a total confiscation of guns, including hunting rifles and pistols.
Also, I would be impressed if the left would admit that a gun being a
so called "assault weapon" really has no effect on its deadliness. As a
point of reference, can anyone reading this article point out (without
using Wikipedia) what the main differences between an M-16,
AR-15, and a
.223
hunting rifle are? Can you tell me the differences between an
AR-15 and an
AK-47? If you can't, you're not alone. I couldn't tell you
all of the differences between these types of rifles off the top of my
head either, and I grew up as a hunter. From what I understand from
people more knowledgeable in the subject than me, the differences are
almost entirely cosmetic. In other words, the only difference between an
AR-15 and .223 hunting rifle is in the design of the stock and barrel
-- things that make no difference in the lethality of the gun.
I think that your point about having a sober debate about the issue
is well-taken. I think that's what most gun owners want as well. Most of
the gun owners I've talked to about the subject are just as scared by
the "looney left" as the left claims to be by gun owners. They are
afraid that their rights will be chipped away at just because of the
actions of a few sick individuals.
I am not sure what can be done to make the U.S. safer. I would be
open to some reasonable ideas, but only if the people making the
arguments can stick to facts and not keep appealing to emotions. Perhaps
more extensive background checks are the answer. Perhaps better mental
health interventions are the answer. Perhaps school guards are the
answer. Perhaps not. Perhaps none of these things will make much of a
difference in preventing the next
mass shooting. In a free society, I am
not sure that the government can guard against every possible bad thing
that can happen to good people. However, if there was a reasonable
measure that could be implemented without infringing excessively on
constitutionally protected freedoms and had a good chance of curbing
violent crime, I would be open to such a measure.
