Discussion in the wake of Colorado

If social media is any indication, its going to be a very long time before the public can be rational about what to do in the wake of things like the theater shooting, school shootings and the Trevon Martin shooting. We have people saying to “take all of the guns away” and others saying “give everyone guns”. Neither of these are rational solutions or even logical reactions to what has happened in recent times especially since we the public don’t even know what really happened. In the case of George Zimmerman, the Martin family along with racial leaders (Sharpton and Jackson) hijacked the entire media coverage for a month to pain Zimmerman as a bigot who hunted Trevon down “like a dog”. The police and FBI investigations are not showing that caricature to be, at least in part, inaccurate. I’ll bet that through the investigation of the theater shooting we find out that there were indications about this kid being disturbed and that some of the things he procured (or at least the ways he got them) weren’t legal.

Instead of trying to parse through events that I wasn’t there for and try predict things that may have prevented such things from happening, I would love to have a rational debate around the core topic that people are undoubtedly going to talk about a lot soon… Gun control. And I’d like to do so by posing a few targeted questions — and give my answers at the same time.

First, what does everyone really think the problem is. Obviously, guns are directly involved but is the fact that someone used a tool for its intended purpose the inherent problem? More specifically, in the case of the mass shootings do any of you believe that a total lack of gun availability would have prevented the events? In the case of George Zimmerman, what do you think the outcome would have been had he not been able to carry a firearm?

I think the answer to this question probably lends too much to individual bias but lets people understand your thinking. A gun serves to kill a person… not a great goal, but given the world we live in sometimes such a tool is necessary. So to me, the question, in part, becomes does having a gun make a person more likely to commit violence. In a general sense… I answer maybe, it really depends on a person’s psychology. If a person is weak willed or lends themselves to self-aggrandizing behavior, a gun could very easily make them feel empowered which is probably a bad thing. This also lets me answer the second question, I don’t believe the lack of guns would prevent mass murder. Specifically in the theater shooting, the kid had a clear goal of killing and terrorizing. He had the knowledge and ability to make primitive explosives and without a gun he could have just as easily blown the up the theater or part of it (probably causing more death, by the way). For Zimmerman, the only part I can imagine happening different is who died (opinions on who was wrong in that event not withstanding), unless you believe that owning a gun specifically made him feel safe enough to be a neighborhood watchman… in which case we’re going to have to really analyze causal events leading up to anything and everything… not something I plan to do here.

Second, given your understanding from the first question, do you believe that being able to remove 100% of civilian firearms will reduce violent crime/murders?

I personally believe the answer to this is impossible. England tried a gun ban starting in 1997 and only saw a temporary drop in average crime rates (there was no precipitous decline as was predicted) and is currently on average worse than most of western Europe for violent crime. Which is a bad omen since the UK is an island… no 2000 mile long porous borders for criminals to get guns through. In the US, it will be impossible to stop illegal arms (we can’t do it for drugs and we have dogs that can sniff those out) which means the only people we take the guns away from are those who would own and use them for legal and reasonable purposes (and some criminals who can’t find a the guy on the corer selling a pistol). Even if we could get rid of guns, I don’t believe that would really help any long term trends (more than what we’re already doing) since violent crime is rarely about the tool used to perform the violence. As I said before, I’m sure there are some people out there who are emboldened by the possession of a gun, but the gun is still a means to an end. A knife, hell a cross bow, would get those people to the same goal.

Third, assume gun control is successful in reducing violent crime, do you believe there are any negative to overriding the right and purpose behind the 2nd Amendment?

The second amendment was written for the explicit purpose of giving the citizenry the right and the tools to overthrow their own government should the government become oppressive again. It wasn’t so that I can shoot a robber in the face with a shotgun as he comes through my door (although, that’s not a bad benefit), it was so that the government lived in perpetual fear of the people to make sure the people always maintained control. For me, this question is really, can I envision an American government where we the people need to dissolve and reform it? (Yes.) More importantly, does taking away the right for citizens to own and carry guns bring with it the ability for our government to act more like Syria’s or Libya’s where the government has all the guns and the only thing the people can do is die? Does the potential reduction in violent crime override the loss of life in my fictional (but possible) future?

I hope my questions (and maybe my own answers) have caused some real thought on the issue. So last, what is your solution?

I don’t fall into the category of giving everyone guns. There are people out there who should never touch a gun and we need reasonable measures to make sure they don’t get them. However, I also firmly believe that we should empower responsible (and practiced, if not trained) gun owners to carry their weapons just about anywhere. Don’t get me wrong, most of the situations we’ve seen lately probably wouldn’t have changed had the gun laws been less strict. In the George Zimmerman case, it would have just been a bloodbath had everyone had a gun. In the case of the theater, other gun owners could have easily shot more innocent people while trying to bring down the assailant. However, there are situations where gun owners could have changed the outcome. In most of the university shootings (specifically the UVA shooting), at least one of the victims or potential victims was a CC/CWP holder and could have returned fire with minimal risk to others. Very recently, we’ve seen stories of citizens stopping robberies and assaults because they were carrying weapons. Ultimately, this is probably a crap chute. For every good there is a bad and for every bad there is a good and we can’t know the unintended consequences of our actions and laws before they’re put into place.