It Is Time For A Meaningful Conversation on Reasonable Gun Laws

Thanks Kelly. You are in my head. You and I are more similar than either of us or anyone that knows us both could probably imagine. Now don’t hurt yourself while you are in my head …

This, obviously, is much more complex than no guns anywhere or all guns everywhere. The conversation I am trying to have and to nurture is how “do we make sure a gun never kills a child.” We can’t accomplish that by simply buying back guns, banning 30 round clips, or allowing the sale of fully automatic weapons anymore than we can stop a building from being blown up by a rental truck of fertilizer by banning the sale of 50 gallon barrels that are used to hold fertilizer.

The final thought I want to add is … our safety plan for protecting kids from maniacs intent on killing those kids with any actual or improvised weapon has to be more nuanced than a teacher, with or without a gun, being the only line of defense.

OK, Kelly. I’ll jump in. The anti-gun individuals that I’ve spoken with have almost zero understanding of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. It seems that their paradigm is that hunting and sport is the ONLY acceptable use of a firearm, and that firearms must be judged according to that criteria. Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is not about that. It is about allowing us… the sovereign citizenry… to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government… which is becoming more and more believable of a possibility every day, unfortunately. And in that case, I may want more than a handgun to protect my family.

I believe the real issue that is being vastly overlooked in this debate is the lack of long-term mental health care in this country. To me, as an EMS provider, THAT is the real issue. Those that claim that “there was no warning” before many of the attacks that have been leveled on innocent victims are misled and ignorant of the facts. There WERE signs. There WAS concern. But no mechanism to deal with it. I can’t tell you how many patients I’ve had… chronic, mentally-ill patients… who have NO hope of ever receiving long-term care, UNLESS they commit a violent crime.

To me, this debate is less about gun control (although that is certainly a worthy topic), but more about improving/overhauling long-term mental health care.

I’ll jump in here AD. Thanks for opening your site to the discussion, I hope others follow suit. I am a believer in many of the things you mentioned in your post and we have spoken about our disagreements on many occasions, later finding we have more in common than not.

I have read the second amendment and the opinions of the supreme court when asked to rule on a case from the lower courts. According to the constitution, nothing short of another amendment will remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but let us all remember the first part of that sentence when discussing the second amendment. That is an entirely different debate.

I do not own a gun but was taught to respect their lethality at an early age thanks to scouting.

I have to disagree with your comment about a gun having only one purpose, since it does. A person who kills with a car is misusing the object to kill. A gun killing something or someone is being used as designed, sold, practiced and intended.

Fine by me, that’s what it’s for.

The term “assault weapon” cracks me up since all guns are assault weapons, as are arrows, swords and and even bricks in some circumstances.

I think current legislation is sufficient.

However (here he goes) we need to close down gun shows. If a background check is required, why is it that gun show sales by FFL dealers are considered “private” sales in many states? (As far as I can discover this is only strictly enforced in California and Washington). This transaction should either conform to the state law requiring a background check or not be allowed. Internet sales fall into the same category. According to ABC News there are a little over 129,000 registered gun dealers in the USA with the bulk of those being classified as collectors. In comparison there are 30,000 grocery stores and 144,000 gas stations. I had no idea there were so many but knew they had to be registered and meet certain restrictions. Shouldn’t they be required to apply the same standards at the shows as in their shops?

That is where I stand on the subject. I don’t want your guns, keep’em, you seem happy, but let’s not think that the unregulated market will solve this problem.

Thanks again.

Kelly,

As a Canadian we are subjected to much stricter controls than our American friends to the south. We are able to hunt and well, we are able to purchase firearms provided we are licensed. (I can’t speak intelligently about the licensing process in the states as I have never had to go through it) We must go through a hunter safety or firearms safety course to be able to proceed with the “Purchase and Acquisition license” (basic license for long-guns), also you need an approval by the RCMP(records check). This license only enables you to buy long-rifles (including semi’s), shot-guns (including semi’s). We have clip size restrictions in place to slow down the killing so to speak. To get a restricted permit (for hand-guns) there is another course and a deeper check conducted by the RCMP.

We also have in place provisions that police may temporarily confiscate all your weapons if you have a know psych, domestic, other violent situation in current action to further prevent “accidents” from happening.

You cannot concealed carry in general in Canada. (notable exceptions are made but are statistically rare). You in fact need to carry hand-guns in separate locked containers with ammo locked in separate locked containers when traveling to and from the range and are supposed to inform the police when such travel is taking place.

Does this work 100% of the time….NO.
Do criminals and serial killers care about the law….NO.

We cannot concealed carry as a citizen in Canada. In point of fact you have to have a pretty damn good reason to carry at all in public here. Is it a good system? I think its pretty good, we have less random gun violence here (it still happens though because like I said criminals could care less about laws — that’s why they are criminals)

Is it a hassle…yes it is. Does it reduce the safety of my home…I am a firm believer that my knives are much more dangerous to a burglar and painful for that matter. My guns are all trigger locked in a locked gun safe…gun accidents will not happen in my home because it is a hassle to get the guns so there has to be premeditation to gun use in my home.

I think the real discussion that needs to happen is the removal of barriers to health care (specifically psychiatric) most of the psych patients I know can’t work because of their condition. So THEY need subsidized healthcare.

Thanks for letting me speak about a topic I really have no business in (as it pertains to another sovereign nation).

Perhaps the one purpose thing should be specified. The biggest “point” people make against firearms is that you can only kill *people* with them, and only the military should do that, so they should be squirreled away to kill people who are against our country. There are two other uses here, the first, I guess more popular one, is hunting, killing an animal to eat; yes we have the supermarket, but there are people who do not trust or approve of the methods to get that meat there, and individuals who choose that lifestyle should be afforded that opportunity. The other, more controversial issue, is that of defending oneself against a “tyrannical government”; remember where this country came from, loosely organised *militias* rose up against the oppressing governing body to obtain freedom. I’m pretty sure it won’t be happening in the too-near future, but as Kelly said, this current system of government is not sustainable, and may lead to a point where we are just in a different geographical arrangement of the colonial times.

As for gun shows, I pretty much agree with you, firearms should not be given to anyone with a pulse and a driver’s license, and *sometimes* this can be the case.

I was also introduced to firearms through Scouting, and it was the strong role models’ respect for something that transferred to me. My father trained to become a weapons expert during Vietnam (thankfully the conflict ended before his training did), and he taught me to shoot BB guns starting when I was 5. I have the greatest respect for him, and if he takes something seriously like that, I know that it’s a big deal. I think this raises another great point about society on the whole, I don’t know what happened to being a parent and actually teaching your children life lessons, where did schools become the be all end all of our youth’s training for life??? I can tell you that recess is the LAST place I want ANYONE learning about social interactions!

Things I would likme to see come out of this:
1. Ethics courses should be taught at every even numbered grade starting with 6th grade. This should not be some sort of cover for introducing religion into schools, but should be an actual course on personal best behavior. I would willing to see it incorporated into some sort of social sciences curriculum that includes teaching the concepts of an individual’s rights AND obligations to society, and vice versa, society’s rights and obligations to the citizen, also known as a social contract.
2. Unarmed combat training should be offered to all students, but not obligatory, starting in 7th grade. Self defense training coupled with education in #1 will reduce bullying and make those inclined to abandon their social contract think twice. Prey that fights back is always less desirable.
3. A basic firearms course needs to be taught in 9th grade. I won’t say that every citizen needs to be armed, but I do think that every citizen needs to be informed.
4. Finally, we have laws to control firearms. Enforcing the ones we have will be more than sufficient to prevent most of these problems. Unfunded legislation never does anything, regardless of the intention.

I agree fully, Greg. Arming teachers is not a reasonable answer. The weapon is the mindset, whereas the gun is only the tool, and most teachers do not possess the mindset to use a gun properly.

Of course, there is the distinction between arming teachers and allowing teachers and school employees to go armed. The latter favors self-selection to those individuals with the proper mindset, and just the possibility that a teacher could be armed is a significant deterrent in itself.

I’m going to weigh in here because I feel like this is a better forum to express my thoughts rather than the ridiculousness of Facebook.
I have never owned, shot or even so much as held a firearm outside of the bb gun I had as a child. I have never felt the urge to own a gun and never really understood some people’s fascination with them, and it has long been my opinion that owning weapons is your constitutional right so more power to you, but however, having never been around guns throughout my life, the urge to collect guns or weapons of any kind is something I have never understood.

So my thoughts on this particular subject are quite simple actually, I am a paramedic, my sister is a preschool teacher. My job is to work on the street and deal with whatever happens to go wrong in my little corner of the world. My sisters job is to sing songs, play games and make sure everyone gets a nap. So why am I more worried about her going to work than she is about me?

I agree that stricter gun control alone will not fix the problem, but I think that, in light of the events last week and the growing frequency of this sort of incident, compromises need to be made on ALL sides. My opinion is that this is a multifaceted issue with no quick fix. We need to be willing and able to meet each other in the middle.

It’s a sad day indeed when people think that preschool teacher is a more dangerous profession than paramedic.

But is it?

Or is it that we simply hear more readily of these stories due to social media and the 24-hour news cycle?

I remember someone posting somewhere an analysis of mass shootings and concluded that, contrary to popular belief, they are not on the rise. Nor did they cease or decline when the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was in effect.

If anyone has a link to that article, please post it.

I think hardening the schools and removing the specious “gun free zone” designation is a better answer. As last Friday proved, “gun free zone” simply means “no possibility of armed resistance” to a would-be shooter.

If we’re going to talk about guns, I think the real issue here should not be gun control, but gun responsibility. People should make sure they’re trained to properly use the guns they own, to properly store them, and when NOT to use them, particularly if they are going to carry concealed. And most important, gun owners have a responsibility to make sure their guns are secure from people who have no business near them, including those that may live with them. This is where the mother of the shooter allegedly failed. I once had an emotionally unstable stepson living with us and I ended up totally disassembling and hiding my gun so there would be no chance of him possibly creating any headlines. This was despite the fact I lived in a questionable neighborhood, but I preferred to take my chances than risk a tragedy with my stepson, for I felt that was the greater threat. Each must decide according to their own unique situation. I decided to err on the side of safety.

Mario,

I don’t agree with your point about “only the military” should do that. Firearms are very effective defensive weapons against criminals. They allow my wife and daughter to effectively protect themselves against a taller, stronger attacker; usually a male.

No one should have to depend only on the police or less lethal means of defense.

In your first comment you mentioned training; I also disagree with that requirement. People seeking to drive a car do not have to show training in most cases, they have to demonstrate competency.

The danger in ‘training’ is some people will think that 10 hours or 1,000 hours isn’t enough. Can you name another specifically enumerated, Constitutionally protected right that requires training before being exercised?

I come from a background of complete ignorance about guns, gun culture, &etc. I am a 56 yr old socially liberal, financially conservative person, but I do not share many of the viewpoints of many of the individuals who also self-describe as such.

I am not happy with the 2nd amendment anymore. I believe it has outlived its usefulness, and should be repealed – AND REPLACED – with something that is more narrowly specific about gun ownership/rights. I do not want to take your gun away from you. I do want our country to be less wide-open regarding a “God-Given Right to Have Guns” attitude that appears to be rampant, particularly in a less-educated portion of our populace.

I do not believe that gun control, or gun bans, or any other sort of weapons bans/laws will solve 100% of the problems of violent behavior and death-dealing. I do, however, believe that guns make emotional, knee-jerk killing exceptionally easier. I don’t buy into the need to own guns to take on the “Government” – and that kind of thinking is something that I cannot get behind in any way.

The statement that “guns only have one purpose” is true, however. Their only purpose is to propel objects at high velocity with the intention of putting holes into said objects, the majority of which – if living – really would most likely not enjoy having holes in them.

And that is the primary, and only, purpose. That doesn’t make it wrong. It is only its purpose.

But when someone comes back at me, when I suggest that required purchase of liability insurance, training, background checks, licensing, and other possible means of working toward responsible gun-ownership in more than just Kelly’s immediate family, I am usually met with a chorus of “Well, Automobiles….”"Well, Spoons…” “So you think we should outlaw spoons and automobiles…”, at which point I can only assume that the other person is not serious about addressing the problem, but only wants to put their right to own a dangerous weapon above my family’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as it were.

Please tell me where I’m wrong. Because I’d trust my little 4-month old granddaughter with Kelly – or KB – in a heartbeat. Gun ownership does not make you the Anti-Christ.

When you say “arming teachers” isn’t reasonable many people will stop reading right there. I’ve made the point myself that we are not Israel, there is no compulsory military service in the U.S. so the notion that every teacher should be handed an M4 and sent out to protect kids is a step too far. However, that’s not the whole story.

You’d be amazed at how many veterans are now in the classrooms. There are programs aimed specifically at recruiting military veterans to become teachers, and in many places they work. I have friends that I served with that are now coaching and teaching in public schools across the nation. These people are highly trained Marines with the ability and mindset to cause severe problems for anyone that would seek to kill innocents. Make no mistake, if they are armed with a textbook and pencil they’ll put up the best fight they can. But given the proper tools I would feel confident that we would never lose 20 kids in a school they were in.

The problem is that the anti-gun people cannot stop worrying about the cosmetic features that make guns scary or magazine capacity long enough to have the conversation about what to do to stop these attacks. I am of the opinion that placing new restrictions on anyone getting a gun is a false hope. There are simply too many guns out there to assume that we can prevent anyone from obtaining one (or 100) if they choose to own one. While the local FFL may not transfer a gun to them the local gang banger isn’t likely to care whether or not someone has a mental disorder or a criminal record. Thus I believe the only reasonable and rational debate we can have is centered on stopping the shooter at the point of attack. Trained armed individuals located inside hardened facilities would be the logical place to begin in my mind.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs Justin, but strictly speaking, the purpose of a firearm is to propel a bullet from the end of the barrel. Where said bullet goes after that and what happens when it gets there is partially due to physics but largely due to the intent of the user- much like the car analogy, btw.

Saying the sole purpose of a gun is to kill ignores the human element- who cannot be banned and only partially legislated- in favor of the inanimate object, which can be both. Problem is, the human element can and will always find a way around them.

A below comment mentioned gun free zones and I wanted to start a new thread on that concept.

I believe the gun free zone is a myth for good guys and bad guys. I have some searching, but have not found any stats or evidences. Just a few anecdotes.

A survey from All State Insurance reported that 89% of Americans reported driving above the speed limit. (the other 11% in my opinion are big fat liars, don’t drive, or have such poor vision they can’t see the speedomteter). These are law abiding citizens reporting that they knowingly ignore a sign, plus everyone else is doing. There are even consequences of speeding, but the risk of being caught is very low.

I believe (I know you wanted facts and stats and not opinions) that placards of weapon free zones are regularly ignored. Perhaps intentionally by good guys as well as bad guys, but also something as simple as I didn’t see the sign, I had to run in real quick, I forgot I was carrying (there seems to be semi-regular news reports of the TSA finding guns on passengers that forgot). I actually believe that people do forget they are carrying. Life is busy. I have searched for my glasses (on my head), my ID and credit card (in my pocket) and my phone (exactly in the pocket I left it in).

Anecdotally I have had several “good guys” tell me they disregard the no weapons allowed signs. I have also seen docs uses their phones in the ED and ICU and people take flash photos when no flash photography is allowed. For many people the rules don’t apply to them. They are not bad guys. They are just doing their own thing.

Thus I think we let go of the myth that the only people with guns in a gun free zone are bad guys. A CCP holder in Milwaukee shot an armed robber several years ago in an Aldi’s with a no weapons sign on the door. He was not charged with anything.

When the defense is “I forgot” and the punishment is nothing or a small misdameanor why wouldn’t you carry? The only bad consequence of significance would an unintended shot (Plaxico Burress). The upside of being a hero probably makes the risk worth it.

I don’t have a CCP (yet) so I can’t admit to carrying into a gun free zone and I don’t expect any of you to confess, but we can let go of the myth of a gun free zone. There is no such thing.

As an outsider (Australian) looking at the issues in the US I have to say that 95% of the rest of the world, in particular the media, have no clue about how entrenched the 2nd amendment is in the fabric of American society or how strongly resisted changed to the constitution will be met – from all sides. Having said that clearly the problem needs some serious addressing and the issues are many and complex. “Removing the guns” is a misguided catch cry, bandied about by people with little or no real understanding of the problem, who naively think that as soon as honest, law abiding citizens surrender their fire arms all crime will stop, shootings will be non existent and fluffy puppies will roam the streets in peace and happiness. The real world is somewhat different. Since the total gun ban in the UK gun related crime is up nearly 90%. In Australia we have seen gun crime rising steadily and “drive by shootings and home invasions with violence” are now almost daily news stories. Tighter gun control simply punishes the law abiding and leaves us at the mercy of the criminal element, who despite what the anti gun lobby think, will not hand in their weapons at the next amnesty. Here in Australia it is illegal for me to use my firearms in self defence. They are all registered, I had to get police permission to purchase them, providing a genuine reason for owning each particular long arm. Rifles are stored in a locked safe, with bolts in a separate compartment, ammunition is stored in another safe. My handguns (It takes a minimum of 6 months to purchase your first one after completing another licence course and qualifying shoots) are stored in yet another safe with more stringent requirements than the long arms – must be trigger locked when out in public, transported to and from the range in a locked gun box and I have to do 6 registered competition shoots for each handgun per year. Despite all this the anti gun lobby here thinks we are all “crazed nut jobs” ready to massacre the public at a drop of a coin. Mean while the thugs and criminals wander the streets with illegally imported hand guns blazing away – the answer from our politicians – tighter gun control! It is not the answer and never will be. Education, training and screening of owners is part of the solution – as is greater identification and treatment of mental health issues and perhaps an armed response in schools. It is a difficult road ahead for all Americans – with the worlds media expecting nothing less than you all handing over your firearms and hugging while they burn. Dont go down that road – you will end up like us – Australian shooters and collectors are treated a social pariahs.

Sewmouse, please please start treating our guns like cars and driver’s licenses.

That way once I purchase my gun, I can take it to any state in the nation that I please, and my CHL will be as valid in one state as another.

On the bright side, when you are killed because you observed the law against using your weapon in self defense against the guy who ignored it, the police can prosecute him for murder… if they catch him.

Doesn’t do much to resurrect you, though.

Bravo, Ernie.

That’s the sort of engagement I’m looking for. Courteous, and pointing out how the comparisons break down.

Hell yes.

As an NRA Life Member, I’d even be willing to pay higher dues to fund it.

NRA already has the classes in place, with a much more realistic and practical approach to gun safety than is already advocated by many anti-gun advocates.

Mandate the Eddie Eagle program in all public schools, and ask NRA to help underwrite the cost.

Well, you kicked over the ant hill with this one Kelly, and concur, there must be a middle ground AND a knowledge of what is actually being talked about… You know where I stand, and yes I HAVE hunted with an AR more than once… When you’re on the hogs, you’re lucky to have 15 seconds to shoot after the first round. It’s also a good varmint gun, especially on small varmints like praire dogs. And the real issue IS mental health… NOT gun bans.

Agreed to all the points, I was just pointing out the differences in how we license. BTW we killed the gun registry with the exception of restricted and prohibited weapons…registering a firearm stops nothing…licensing encourages at least a little bit of education.

Less educated is something that I take exception to. I have two bachelor’s degrees, three associates degrees, and a year of graduate school under my belt. I am hardly uneducated.