Skip to content

It Is Time For A Meaningful Conversation on Reasonable Gun Laws

161 comments

I hope that the post title at least captured the attention of my anti-gun readers, and keeps you reading.

Those of you who read this blog know my political views. I'm a  socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarian, although the pelt of my Wookie suit is not quite so full and glossy as some.

I am a Christian who supports the rights of gays to marry. I am a southern white male redneck who believes minorities and women deserve equal treatment, but I also believe that quota systems like Affirmative Action are covert racism, fostering the notion that minorities cannot succeed on their own merits.

I believe in legal immigration, and I devoutly believe in the words of Emma Lazarus inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I also believe we should secure our borders, and that there should be an easier avenue toward legal immigration. That does not include blanket amnesty for current illegal aliens.

I believe abortion is a sin, yet I refuse to impose my moral beliefs upon others in the form of laws. I believe religion should stay the hell out of our government, and government should stay the hell out of our religion.

I believe in God, but I distrust preachers. And I believe that most of our Founding Fathers felt the same way.

I believe that any civilized society should take care of its citizens who cannot care for themselves, but I believe government has proven itself incapable of doing so without creating an even larger class of people who won't do for themselves. I believe our government, outside of some very narrow strictures, screws it up more often than it gets it right, and that our system of government is headed for collapse if it continues trying to be all things to all people.

I believe that we owe it to ourselves, and the generations to come, to ensure that does not happen, and that the means to do so is to vote out the politicians who refuse to acknowledge – by word AND deed – that the government cannot keep providing these things for us.

I believe in freedom, and I am a law-abiding man. Yet I also believe that we have too many laws as it is, and that more of them are infringing on our freedoms every day. And there is a limit to how much I will obey. There is a line beyond which I will not be pushed, even by my government.

I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

I believe that Bull Durham was a heckuva movie, obviously.

I also own a whole bunch of guns, including a few of those so-called "assault weapons" many of you want to ban following the horrible events last Friday.

I know that many of you, hoplophiles and hoplophobes alike, come here for the EMS stories and the medical commentary and the humor. And I know that most of the hoplophobes just ignore the firearms posts when they pop up in their RSS feed.

I hope you keep reading now, because it is indeed time for that meaningful conversation on reasonable gun restrictions.

The problem is, for the conversation to be "meaningful" and the restrictions actually "reasonable," both sides have to be speaking the same language. It is difficult to debate facts when one side operates from a position of monumental ignorance. Knowledge replaces unreasoning fear and emotion with rational thought, and that is what I propose to do here.

I say this because I have spent the last week debating gun control on Facebook with intelligent, college-educated and well-meaning people… who are utterly ignorant of the subject.

I engaged a commenter on a friend's facebook thread who basically called me a liar when I stated that many people hunt with AR15 platform rifles. I was about to offer proof of that, when further in his comment I discovered that he also believes that fully automatic weapons are still available to civilians, that you can buy them without ID or background check, and that they are commonly used in crime, and that you can go to gun stores and gun shows in America and buy a rocket propelled grenade. He then went on to state that three of his friends had converted their AR15's to full-auto fire within the past 10 years, and that he had fired these weapons.

So the anti-gun guy from Arlington, VA aids and abets a Federal felony, and consorts with felons. Good to know.

I was unfriended and banned from further debate after that. He continues to rail on about "Why do you neeeeed to own an AR15?" while owning a whole fleet of expensive, vintage ambulances with no airbags or seatbelts, powered by big gas-guzzling V8 motors with no catalytic converter that he doesn't neeeeeeed, either.

Debate with such people is not possible. I am sorry, but you do not get to characterize your points as rational and the restrictions you propose as reasonable if you debate from a position of such monumental ignorance.

So here is what I propose to do: If you don't know jack shit about guns, or you are afraid of them, or if you think tightening gun restrictions is the answer to prevent further events like the massacre at Sandy Hook School, tell us your concerns right here. Tell us why you hold those beliefs. Tell us why you think it is a good idea.

And I swear to you, we will debate you calmly, rationally, and without belittling you. We will treat you with respect and courtesy. We will afford you the courtesy that is NOT extended to Second Amendment advocates who try to debate on anti-gun forums, because invariably the owners of those forums delete or modify pro-gun comments, or shut down comments entirely when their emotional points are countered with facts. Or unfriend you, like my former friend Steve.

I will not do that here.

I am not the first Second Amendment blogger to make such an offer, but I am one of the few that has a substantial non-gun readership. I'll give you a forum here, to debate the issue, and be educated. We may not change your minds on the issue, but at the end of the day, we hope to educate you enough that you are debating a rationally considered moral principle and not one of unreasoning fear based on ignorance.

If you still believe we shouldn't have guns, then at least we can agree to disagree.

We'll do the debate in the comments. If they get to be too long, I'll put up subsequent posts on the subject.

Before we begin, let's set the ground rules:

  1. No personal attacks. That goes for anti-gunners and pro-gunners alike. Insult someone here, get nasty, and you're banned permanently. That goes for my friends as well. If an anti-gunner insults you, you leave the discipline up to me. Do not take the bait. Anti-gunners, you do likewise. You can attack an argument all you want, but attack a person and you eat ban hammer. Personal attacks and misbehavior will see the commenter banned, and their comments held up for public ridicule and mockery. There will be no warnings.
  2. Anonymous comments are allowed. I realize that many commenters do not wish to engage in public debate under their own names. That's cool, as long as your comments are respectful and constructive. If you attack people from a position of anonymity, that just makes you a coward and a troll, even if you're on my side.
  3. Provide facts and figures wherever possible. If we're going to debate, "I feel" is a weak position. Back up what you say with facts and figures if you can. Not all of the facts and figures are going to agree. And be prepared that when some of you quote figures to support your position, your opponents will point out why your apples don't compare to their oranges.
  4. Ridiculous statements beget ridiculous statements. If your debating position is "Guns only have one purpose, and that is to kill! ZOMG! Eleventy!" then you forfeit the right to dismiss as a non sequitur anyone who counters with other everyday objects that kill more people than guns.
  5. No piling on. Pro-gun people are going to outnumber the anti-gun people here. If another commenter has already adequately countered an anti-gun comment with solid facts and figures, refrain from adding your own comment slightly rephrased purely because you want to get your snark on. On the other hand, anti-gunners, if your response to having your points is refuted is little better than, "Uh uh, did not!" then prepare to have someone else enter the discussion. Stubbornly ignoring the facts is not debate.

Those are the rules. Let the meaningful conversation begin!

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted by on December 20, 2012 • Filed under: 2nd Amendment
← Older Comments
  • mpatk

    Amen to that!!!

  • mpatk

    Just as the Federal government is restricted by the U.S. Constitution, the several states are restricted by their individual Constitutions.

  • mpatk

    We will never know whether the killer at Sandy Hook was a monster (aka sociopath aka psychopath), or whether he was suffering from a psychosis, which rendered him unable to determine hallucinations, delusions, etc… from reality. The only people who could tell us for certain, the shooter and the closest relative (the mother), are both dead and unable to answer questions.

    People having a psychotic “break from reality” are perfectly capable of making complex plans. There may be nothing wrong with their ability to plan and reason; there is a problem that alters their perception of reality, not how they react to that distorted reality. For all we know, the shooter thought he was “saving” the children from “a fate worse than death”; there are plenty of examples of killers who acted to “save” others, or out of “God’s Will”.

  • Florida

    The second amendment is not about hunting or even really self-defense against private criminals…Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain it for you.

    …”The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. It is not about hunting, and at its core, the Second Amendment is not really even about self-defense against private criminals. It is about self-defense against public criminals – against tyrants, usurpers, and foreign invaders. (and that is the whole point of the crucial upcoming film, Molon Labe).

    Above all other firearms currently available to the American citizen, modern military pattern, semi-automatic rifles provide that military capacity. Protecting the keeping and bearing of such arms of military utility is the heart and soul of the Second Amendment. Thus, any attempt to ban their possession, sale, purchase, or transfer, is an attempt to disarm the American people.”…t is not about hunting or even really self-defense against private criminals…Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain it for you.

    …”The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. It is not about hunting, and at its core, the Second Amendment is not really even about self-defense against private criminals. It is about self-defense against public criminals – against tyrants, usurpers, and foreign invaders. (and that is the whole point of the crucial upcoming film, Molon Labe).

    Above all other firearms currently available to the American citizen, modern military pattern, semi-automatic rifles provide that military capacity. Protecting the keeping and bearing of such arms of military utility is the heart and soul of the Second Amendment. Thus, any attempt to ban their possession, sale, purchase, or transfer, is an attempt to disarm the American people.”…

  • http://profiles.google.com/yrrosimyarin Yrro Simyarin

    That’s one thing I have been surprised never seems to be brought up by many of the anti’s – is that the restriction is always to “active” police officers and military personell. When we have hundreds of thousands of ex military, or ex police, who have the training and mindset that they often say ‘civilians’ lack. Even ignoring the problems with the idea that just having a badge makes you a super hero, if it does, taking it off shouldn’t turn you back into Clark Kent, either.

    I don’t expect the 60-year-old preschool teacher who weighs 90 pounds sopping wet to stop an attacker (although good on her if she wants to try!). But even my tiny rural school had three military veterans teaching at it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jennifer-Reed-Mitch/1542200064 Jennifer Reed Mitch

    I’m neither for or against. I don’t believe it can be regulated. To me (this is MY opinion), putting a ban on something just challenges another to come up with the next weapon, etc. Does Prohibition ring any bells? I don’t like guns, Kelly, because frankly I’ve never seen a GSW with a good outcome. I’ve lived 52 years without one and hope to live at least another 20 years without one. Good commentary though.

  • FireFighter Zero

    How do you reason with people who are afraid of guns. Like the tv personality who does not want cops in schools because cops have guns. The fact that the cop has a gun somehow makes her kids unsafe. As if to say that the gun is dangerous not the criminal, or the criminal would not be dangerous if he did not have a gun. Maybe i am rambling?

  • FireFighter Zero

    Furthermore, why is it up to the govt. to tell me that myself or my family is mentally unsound? When did the current generation of parents shed the responsibility of being responsible parents?

  • FireFighter Zero

    Gads! we should consider banning cars, cell phones, swimming pools and playground equipment. Make it a crime with prison time for not haveing smoke detectors, child seats in cars, the ones that dont get banned anyway. Carbon monoxide detectors, sprinkler systems would save kids. Genocide probably should also be rethought. Last post I promise. Oh yeah aslo child immunizations also save kids. ok now im done.

  • Frank Ney

    And on the other side of the coin you have Rhode Island, where the course happens once a year, maximum 30 attendees, minimum political contribution of $50K required.

  • Anon.

    This is sever dredging from old old topics and for that i apologies but i am genuinely interested in your views on gun law, specifically handgun/pistols and almost more so from an EMS perspective. To start with, i will give my background; I am a (very) green paramedic who graduated from university in 2011. I have lived and worked in London, England for that time and therefore have very little to do with guns in general except when either myself or fellow EMS staff are threatened with one or attend someone who has been shot with one.

    Handguns have been banned from private ownership, including sporting pieces, in England since 1997 after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. All semi-automatic long barreld firearms have been banned since the hungerford masscre in 1987. From my perspective i would like all guns to go the same way. I understand that many people may not share this view and do enjoy using guns for sport, hunting etc and i make no judgement on you as a person for doing this.

    My reason why i would like all guns to be banned;

    The harder it is for anyone to get their hands on any form of projectile (and please note the use of the word projectile) weapon the better. Especially one which can be The idea of being able to cause massive penetrating trauma from a large distance scares me far more than the idea of a someone having a knife.

    The most common counterargument to this point and my response; “Criminals will still be able to get guns, even if you ban them, and all that will mean is that law abiding people will not have a gun to defend themself with”. It is true that no matter how hard you try, guns will still be in the hands of criminals as they will still be able to get them from somewhere, but let us consider all the people who have been killed by people who own leagal gun licences, such as in the Cumbria shootings in 2010, committed by someone who held a firearms licence.

← Older Comments
Vote for me! Click Here

Polarized sunglasses, Flashlights, and Hiking boots.