In the wake of yet another mass shooting — this time claiming the lives of at least 12 people in Thousand Oaks, Calif. — it’s painfully obvious that the United States has a problem with gun violence. In our current political environment, it’s also obvious that little can be done about it.
Sixty-one percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws, according to a recent Gallup poll, but this statistic hides a strong partisan divide: Eighty-seven percent of Democrats support tougher gun laws, while only 31 percent of Republicans do. How can we solve the gun violence problem when Republicans and Democrats can’t seem to come together on anything these days, let alone on an issue as politically divided as gun control? …
… Click here to continue reading this article at The Washington Post
If you like this article, you might also be interested in:
Enjoyed your piece on why we maintain our positions on contentious issues such as guns. A trial lawyer of 38 years, I am an avid “collector” of politically-incorrect, semi-auto, military-style rifles (and pistols) and would never submit to registration or bans, and strongly oppose same. Yet, on several occasions, when consulted by a friend or acquaintance about buying a pistol for self-defense I have discouraged the individual because I didn’t think they would do what was necessary to be a safe and proficient pistol owner. Pistols are particularly dangerous for several reasons. And one must practice to be good with a pistol. It is an entirely different weapon from a rifle or shotgun.
So while I recognize intellectually that firearms are indeed dangerous, especially in the hands of an untrained and unpracticed owner, I don’t want to be regulated and would reject such regulation (which would be easy for me to do because of my personal circumstances) because of concerns regulation would become coercive. Thus, I oppose regulation because it would apply to me, even though regulation might cut down on killings. And this logic makes perfect sense to my steel-trap trial lawyer’s mind.
As such, it isn’t perhaps that each side doesn’t listen as much as it is that on an issue such as guns that prople have far different criteria for imposing “safety” regulations versus an unreasonably dangerous skin cream. In the same way there is a far different conception of the fairly unlimited nature of free speech in the US as opposed to European countries.
M Duane Coyle
Wichita
Interesting view, obviously you’ve put some thought into this.
Let’s apply the same title and thought to other Constitutional rights:
“How to come together to prevent the right to assemble”
“How to come together to prevent religion”
“How to come together to curb free speech”
I think we can all agree that free speech is dangerous. It has incited people to riot, burn things and even drive into crowds. Many recent examples in the news. Likewise, the press has driven people like the guy who shot up the Republican Congressional softball game.
So, we also need to take away the right to assemble. Less crowds, less danger of provoking speech, and less targets.
Certainly, using the same logic, we need to prevent or restrict religion. After all, nobody can deny that more lives have been lost in the name of religion than in all wars. (As in, my religion is better than yours, convert or die).
Oh, but wait, my Constitutional rights! Oh, yeah, those pesky things. Perhaps we should just make journalists and other citizens go through a background check, and fill out forms under penalty of law regarding their backgrounds, drug use, mental health. I’m sure we could come up with suitable screening. Then we could develop a “free speech license” or “attending church license.”
You see how quickly the Republic is no more if you do those things? “Oh, but we weren’t advocating that. We just want to do “something.”
Yes, yes you were. You just didn’t think through the process. You’ve bought into the “Let’s talk about gun control” thought without thinking about the Constitution. Why? Because it doesn’t affect YOUR Constitutional rights, only those of “someone else.”
It is much easier to do that than to address the real causes. Pass a law, take a few gun rights away, stigmatize guns, and go back to your own life.
Mass shootings occasionally occurred in decades before, but not on a wide scale. Even prior to the 1938 Firearms act when machine guns were legal, no kid took his dad’s machine gun and shot up a school. No guy walked into a TV studio and tried to take out the staff. You don’t read of mass school shootings before or after the 1938 act, other than those done by criminal elements.
Virtually every home had a gun of some sort, but schools weren’t shot up.
So, society has changed, not the guns.
What is truly needed is a national conversation about how to preserve all our Constitutional rights and yet turn the tide against mass murder. (whether using guns, knives, cars, bombs or any method.)
How do we fix the broken mental health system?
How do we fix unethical conduct by young people?
How do we fix the 24x7x365 news cycle to avoid glorifying mass murderers and promoting their memory?
How do we preserve our speech, right to bear arms, assembly, and religious rights, yet address the easy access to violent video games, movies, TV shows, and pornography by citizens (mostly young) whose moral compass is not fully formed?
Seriously. No other God given Constitutional right has as many restrictions, qualifications and rules put on it as gun ownership. I’m sure someone looked at the first list of “How to come togethers” and either thought or said out loud: I won’t put up with that!!!! It is my RIGHT to…
OK, it is not your Constitutional right to eat drink, or talk on the phone, or text while behind the wheel of a car. Yet we kill something like 54,000 people per year needlessly in car accidents. Many due to distracted driving, texting, or talking, and others due to drinking. We’ve passed laws against all of those activities, and still they happen on an ever increasingly basis. I suspect once the data is in, we will also have a DUI of marijuana issue in the future as well.
Last time I looked, it was against the law to use class one drugs without doctor’s supervision. Yet we have an opioid crisis.
I totally agree that we need to come together, but it isn’t about gun control. It is about how to mend a fracturing society, where men and women feel they are not accountable for their own actions, that Constitutional rights and the individual rights it conveys are becoming less important as we look to government to solve individual and community problems we used to resolve ourselves.
Well, that pretty much sums it up. Ditto on JDC’s comments. 😉