We are living in a very unique period in history. Ever since this country was formed we have had disagreements on just about everything. Politics, religion, economics, civil rights, The stones or the Beatles? I believe our founding fathers expected division on issues, even welcomed it and envisioned a future where two or more parties would bring forth ideas and propositions, debate on them, compromise, and at the end of the day reach an agreement and act in the best interest of the general population. They must be rolling in their collective graves at this point.
Today, after a week of silence, the NRA held a press conference. The gun control debate has been a hot button issue for many years now, but with this most recent tragedy at Sandy Hook in Newtown Connecticut, it seems to have reached something of a tipping point. Last Friday 20 beautiful, innocent children and 6 brave, selfless adults lost their lives when a man armed with several weapons, including a semi automatic assault rifle, forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary and fired off over a hundred rounds. As per usual, and it’s sad and unacceptable that I am able to phrase it like that, when one of these tragedies strikes, the NRA lies low. Initially people are up in arms, no pun intended, and we see an outcry for stricter gun regulation. This lasts for a couple of weeks, and then we settle back into some sense of normalcy and the issue fades away. This time feels different though, and based off of the press conference, the NRA most certainly senses that. In the past the NRA was adamantly defended the right to bear arms, often to extreme levels and lengths. I had high hopes that perhaps today would be different, but that was not the case.
Before I go any further I want to take a moment to make my position on this inescapably clear. The closest thing I own to a weapon is my extensive collection of super-soakers and light sabers. I have the right to own a gun, I just choose not to exercise that right. Though I’m not a gun owner, I am absolutely in no way opposed to people owning them. Whatever your position is on this issue I think we can all agree that there are many legitimate and even rationale reasons for civilians owning a firearm. Some use them for hunting, or target shooting. Some own them for personal protection, both for themselves and for their families, and still some are just collectors who admire the craftsmanship in a firearm. I imagine that many owners probably fit into all of those categories.
My point is I am not one of those out there screaming for a ban on guns. That’s completely unrealistic, and I don’t think that would solve the gun violence problem anyhow. There are many sound minded and responsible people out there who own guns. I think we can also all agree that we would prefer firearms to be in the hands of those types of people. So the question is, how can we go about achieving that? What laws/regulations can we put into place to help make that happen? That’s what I’m all about. So do not mistake anything I say for the extreme rhetoric from some whom oppose guns altogether. Now something I do believe is that we absolutely do not need to have semi automatic assault weapons in the hands of any civilian. Unless deer start wearing body armor, we certainly don’t need them for hunting. I understand that some owners of these weapons just enjoy collecting and shooting them at the range, and that we would be in essence allowing the actions of some to infringe on owners’ hobbies and personal enjoyment. I’m sorry. Really I am. It sucks. But look, there are many times in our lives where we have to sacrifice something for the greater good or the good of someone else. If I was an owner of one these weapons and a piece of legislation was being proposed to prohibit my ownership of them in an effort to reduce violent crimes, I would hope that I would be alright with that. I’m sure I would be upset and even a little conflicted about it, but if this meant that there was even a chance of preventing tragedies like what happened last Friday from happening again, I would hope that I, and others, would get on board. I just don’t think that style of weapon with high-capacity clips are necessary. That’s what we should ask ourselves. What is necessary? Do we need an assault weapon capable of firing off hundreds of rounds for hunting, or self-protection? I think there are other options that work just fine.
Now if we were to ban assault weapons that would not mean that violence, or even mass shootings, would end all together and everything would be sweetness and light. I fully believe that those out there intending to do harm, will find a way. But guns are an easy way to do it. They’re super accessible, and don’t exactly take a rocket scientist to operate. And not everyone who commits these kinds of atrocities are plotting and scheming for months or years on how they’re going to do it. Many have mental issues that play a role in their eventual break from reality. When that break happens guns make for an extremely easy way for them to act on their fragmented and delusional state of mind. I firmly believe that if these weapons were not so readily available that we would see a drop in these types of shootings. And yes you can point to some statistics that show an increase in violent crimes coinciding with stricter gun laws, but if you look at the data on the majority of those statistics you will see that violent crimes were already rising before laws were put into place. So, I don’t think that’s really a strong or even valid point to make. The fact is we are far stricter and have more regulations around owning and operating a vehicle than we do a gun.
And yes more people are killed per year from vehicles, than guns. The difference though is that a car is not designed to take life away, where as that is a gun’s primary purpose. Whether that life be a human or an animal, that is why it exists. I know it can be part of a collection, or used for target practice, but you’re not practicing shooting targets just to get better at shooting targets (save for those who really are competitive shooters). You’re improving your skill with a weapon in the event that one day you might have to use it for what it is primarily designed to do. Take life away. I’m 29 and my driver’s license expires in 2016. I will be 32, and I will have to go to the DMV to be issued a new license if I wish to continue driving a car. Would it not then be reasonable to have similar regulation for firearms? Many times you don’t even need a license to own a gun. Surely, we can make some improvements.
So to sum up in general my position on this issue, I’m all for the 2nd amendment, I don’t believe we need assault weapons, and I think we need to seriously revise our current policies and regulations on gun ownership.
Now back to the NRA. As I said, I was not surprised by their response. (And I’m going continue to use the word “they” as the men who spoke, spoke on behalf of the millions of the NRA’s members, and if you’re a member and you weren’t happy with the way you were being represented, I suggest and encourage you to speak out) They took a hard-lined aggressive stance and immediately went on the defense, playing the victim. THEY ARE NOT THE VICTIM HERE. The VICTIMS are being buried this weekend. The NRA had an opportunity. They are a group that holds a great deal of political and social power. For better or worse, they are very influential. But instead of showing even the slightest hint of a willingness to compromise and cooperate, they went rogue. They immediately started pointing fingers at everyone except themselves. Anytime that a person or organization absolves themselves of all responsibility, you can be sure that they actually have a great deal of responsibility and know it, and know that they are vulnerable and in fact fear their own vulnerability. It’s this very fear that continues to hinder the NRA and prevents them from being part of a meaningful and productive debate on the issue of gun control. This is a time for self-reflection. It’s a time for each and every one of us to examine our lives, and what we are doing (good and bad), and ask our selves “Are we satisfied?” “Can we do better?” Apparently this memo didn’t hit the desks at the NRA headquarters. Feeling like scapegoats, they immediately went to their own go-to scapegoats, the media, movies, music and video games.
Now, I work in TV and Film and I will be the first one to agree that it plays a role. Films and TV shows glorify and even romanticize violence, and they do have a big impact on young minds. I can testify to this personally as I still catch my self from time to time waving my hand at red traffic lights in a futile attempt to turn them to green with “the force”. I also enjoy “violent” video games. Halo 4 is consuming my life light now. In playing this game I get medals and awards that have names like “Killing Spree” and “Killtacular”. The difference with me is that I have not yet caught my self going on real rampages. I can separate fantasy from reality. There are some who cannot, or at least not as easily, and I’m certain that these types of media would have a bigger impact on those types of people.
I also agree that the news media plays a role. Our 24 hour news networks give too much attention to the perpetrators of these atrocities. I read an article on CNN that said that the tragedy at Sandy Hook will “rank” as the 2nd worst school shooting in the United States.”Rank?” Is this some sort of competition? We showcase these people and I believe the level attention we give them has the capability to “inspire” another disturbed person out there to commit their own act of chaos. Not to mention what it does for spawning direct copy cats. I think it’s important to report the news, but we should be focused more on the victims and not their killers.
Now you see this is how I and the NRA differ. I fully admit that everything that they pointed out does indeed play a role. But the NRA weren’t even willing to entertain the notion that they may play a part in tragedies like this just as much as all of the other things that they were so quick to point out. This shows that they are very narrow-minded and tend to only see things from their point of view. It’s very difficult to have a productive conversation with anyone who refuses to see things from any point of view other than their own. In addition to their unwillingness to work together, they directly contradicted their own points. About midway through the conference they said that there was only one way to achieve safety in our schools, and that was to have armed guards in every single school in America. Then towards the end of the conference they said that they realize there is not a “one size fits all” solution. Am I missing something?
Now first of all, there are about 250,00 schools in America. That’s including early education, grade schools, high schools, day cares, tech schools, colleges and other learning institutions. I assume by armed guards the NRA is not referring to mall security cops with flashlights and mace. The type of guard(s) needed to stand against someone with semi auto weapons are the armed to the teeth variety. The guards with semi auto or full auto weapons themselves, body armor and so on. And one guard isn’t going to be enough. Realistically there would need to be at least or two or three guards present to provide actual security. Maybe even more for larger schools. In actuality many schools already have guards, and even their own police. Virginia Tech is a good example. There are many armed officers there, and yet tragedy still occurred. So I don’t think having “good guys with guns” as they put it, in every school is a viable solution. I do think having armed officers and security personnel at higher risk and larger institutions can certainly be part of the equation though. Now schools aren’t the only place where we and our kids go. What about movie theaters? Shopping malls? Gas stations? Grocery stores? We all go to them, and they are every bit as vulnerable to an attack. Shall we then have armed guards there too? Should we just live in a militarized state with Martial Law? The NRA is so concerned with protecting freedoms, and yet it seems to me that the policies that they would enact would make us far less free, not to mention less safe. Do we really want “good guys with guns” every where we go? There are other solutions, but they are so blinded by their fear that they can’t see them. What’s more, it is an irrational fear, and irrational people with guns scare me. These guys are clearly intelligent so I just don’t see how they can genuinely believe that their way of life is really being threatened and that government men are going to come knocking on their doors and take their guns away. That’s not going to happen, and they know it’s not going to happen.
Those who defend the NRA may argue that I am singling them out. That’s completely untrue. I’ve agreed that gun violence is a puzzle with many pieces, but being an organization with a significant amount of members and power, they are one of the larger pieces. They are influential, and for better or worse, they hold a great deal of sway. It begs the question then, if they are so powerful, why are they so fearful? Or is their whole organization built around and created out of fear? I know I’m generalizing. Just like any organization out there, not everyone thinks as their leaders do. Plenty of NRA members have spoken in out in favor of reviewing and improving gun control measures. I wish those types of people were running the NRA.
So where do we go from here? I don’t have an answer. I do know that as long as both sides of this debate continue to be unwilling to listen and cooperate, we will remain in gridlock. It’s going to take an uprising of logical, rationale, cooperative and fed up people to make things change. We can’t just have a regular ole uprising to get this done. Nothing will be achieved with an “us VS them” mentality. We have to listen, empathize, and compromise. Until we do that, I don’t think we will see any progress on this, or many other issues. Still, we must try. We must do something. We cannot let the lives lost in Newtown and countless other communities across the country be in vain any longer. We cannot change the cards we are dealt, we only control how we play the hand. This tragedy can be a catalyst for good. I believe that, and I will be doing what I can to make it so.
The NRA said that we waited a week to speak, out of respect for the families affected by this tragedy. That’s very nice, but I can almost certainly guarantee that if you were to ask any of the families if they feel respected after yesterday, they would probably say no. If you really want to show respect, lay aside the rhetoric and the obtuse accusations. Be receptive, honest, and rationale. We all agree that less dead kids would be a good thing. We have different ideas of how to go about achieving that. So lets come together, share those ideas, debate them vigorously, but let’s not vilify each other and resort to sensationalism and tired rhetoric. Let’s get something done. We can’t stop it all together, but that does justify standing idly by and doing nothing. Are we satisfied? Can we do better?
Or maybe we can just bring God and Jesus back into our schools and they can fix everything up.
Posted in Life, Uncategorized, wow look at that
Tags: armed guards at schools, assault rifles, assault weapons, bushmaster, civilians owning assault rifles, gun ban, gun control, gun control positions, gun laws, gun legislation, Gun Owners, gun rhetoric, gun shows, gun violence, Guns, mass shootings, National Rifle Association, Newtown, NRA, NRA Gun Control, NRA press conference, NRA rhetoric, response to gun control, right to bear arms, Sandy Hook, school security, School Shootings, semi auto guns, taret practice, the 2nd amendment, virginia tech