Risk v. Reward: A Fresh Perspective on Gun Control
We need to talk.
You're uncomfortable; curious, but uncomfortable. I can see that. You look like you're maybe already adopting a defensive position at your keyboard.
You know what this is about, don't you?
I'd like you to relax. Here's what I AM going to do: I'm going to talk about gun control in a pragmatic, sensible, objective-as-possible manner. Here's what I'm NOT going to do: take your guns. I'm going to repeat that: I, Josh, will not take your guns. I am a writer, not a sorcerer. You can read this particular entry about gun control, and when you are finished, you will still have whatever guns you had when you began. Barring some sort of obscure coincidence beyond my control, I can guarantee this. I swear it to you. Can you lower your weapons for a second and maybe open your mind? Wisdom and enlightenment are choices, and an open mind is a mandatory prerequisite. So relax and read and think for yourself. If you are still defensive, please stop reading now. You are wasting your own time and you are likely to aggravate every ounce of your preexisting bitterness, which you will then choose to pay forward, be it to your friends, your coworkers, or your progeny. If you are defensive, you will gain nothing but anger from this blog. The world needs less anger and bitterness, and more wisdom. So can you... You know... Can you lower your guns for a minute?
Good. Now that we got that out of the way, let's discuss a few things. I will make my stance clear: I do not believe that civilians (and non-active military members) should be allowed to purchase or possess assault weapons.
Ugh. There go your defenses again.
Put them down for a moment. I'm not talking about all guns. I will own a gun someday to protect my house, my family, and myself. The world is a scary place, and I am an untrusting person. There are bad people out there, and, heaven forbid, should I find myself on the wrong side of an altercation where my life or my family is in danger, I will not hesitate to fire upon my attacker with the intent to kill him (let's be realistic, it's always a 'him'). I imagine that it would have a profoundly traumatic effect on me, killing a man, but when faced with the two possible outcomes in this scenario, I will be so, SO thankful that I had the means to protect what was dear to me.
I will likely own rifles. I've never been much of a hunter, but I can see myself getting into it in the future. There are a number of things about hunting that I find fascinating, and I'd like to explore it further. I can literally see myself owning multiple firearms, and a couple of them will probably just be for fun.
I need you to remember that I said that, because the remainder of this blog, to the ignorant and/or the stupid (and/or the forgetful), will seem like an attack on guns in general. I will reference the above paragraphs repeatedly to remind you that this is the case, because if you are an advocate of guns, you will absolutely forget that I support them. It will be the defensiveness we spoke of earlier that does this to you. Please, I'm begging you, for as long as it takes to read one long blog, just open your mind. Ok?
Here we go.
I saw something recently that just horrified me. The following picture introduced itself into my awareness via, what else, Facebook. It appeared on my news feed three separate times from three separate acquaintances, all of whom are avid gun advocates. The picture needs no real introduction. Here it is:
I don't even know where to start. There's... there's just so much.
What likely began as an attempt to simultaneously empower women and defend our right to own assault rifles has just taken a tragic turn toward the province of unparalleled ignorance.
As you can probably see, the author of this particular image is apparently equating the luxury of possessing an assault rifle with Rosa Parks' agonizing struggle to be treated more like a human being and less like an unwanted mutt. I realize that this particular stance doesn't encompass every gun advocate's views, but I'm still concerned. Somebody made this picture. In somebody's eyes, these are the exact same thing.
And there are people in the world passing these toxic ideas around. It's like a virus, but it's being spread intentionally. Instead of targeting our bodies, this poison is aimed at our souls.
Every idea presented in this picture screams of ignorance. The idea that this woman, who, judging from her attire, clearly thought she was going to Starbucks and not the wilderness, somehow needs an assault rifle. The idea that, if somebody asks you, "Why do you need an assault rifle,"a perfectly valid answer is, "Because I can have one." The idea that the Constitution is, apparently, omniscient.
And, of course, as I first pointed out, there is the fallacy of False Equivalence. Rosa Parks was treated as though she was less than human. She lived through one of the most unfathomably difficult times in American history, a time that was fueled by hatred, ignorance, and fear. While some of you may have had some difficulties, say, making friends in high school, nobody reading this blog has ever encountered such unwarranted discrimination in their life. I don't need to hear your life story for me to know that this is true.
The other woman in the picture, the one firing the assault rifle, probably broke a nail during the aforementioned firing session. If the world was really out to get her that day, she may have also gotten her nice clothes dirty.
I do not feel the need to elaborate on this ANY further.
And I apologize for the gender stereotyping. That was wrong of me. I was upset.
So let's talk about guns. They don't kill people, bad people kill people. No, I get that. I really do. When having an argument with people about this, they'll often fall back on this line of reasoning, stressing over and over and OVER again to me that this, you see, was not the gun's fault at all.
Seriously. I get it.
So what do we do? We can't blame the guns, right? It's the people that we have to fix. Better access to mental health care! Less violence on TV and video games! And, above all else, let's go out and be BETTER GODDAMN PARENTS!!!!!! If we ALL just agree to treat each other better starting right this effing second, we can keep this from happening in the future!
You're not wrong; This is achievable. I've heard legends of a sort of magic dust that just makes everybody love each other and stuff, man. I'm not talking about that shit Frank sells when the sun goes down, either... This stuff is legal. If we can simply find the right wardrobe to Narnia, traverse the unforgiving Witchy Witch mountains or whatever the bullshit they're called, slay the dreaded Hufflepuffagus, and steal his second tail, then we can cure humanity of all hate and ignorance and pain OVERNIGHT.
I could do all of this. I would bear this burden, if I must. Please contact me to set up a time that I can use to inspect your closet.
...
Maybe we should start looking for a more practical solution?
Thank you. I'm glad to see that you finally came around. You see, it's not that the world is incapable of becoming a more loving place, it's just that, well, YOU try to accomplish that and see how far it gets you. We're looking at a centuries-long metamorphosis of the human attitude. We can take these steps to begin the process, but this will not be over quickly. If we'd like to reduce the number of people dying in bunches via assault rifle right now, we need to take away the other thing...
If we want to see a change now, we need to remove the gun.
Make no mistake, I am fully aware that death is a natural and inevitable consequence of being alive. I am also fully aware that people kill other people using a variety of methods. So the main point of this particular blog entry is not that we should take away everything that could possibly be used to cause death to human beings, it's this: If some of the Really Really Bad is avoidable without making outrageous sacrifices, then shouldn't we try to get rid of as much of that Bad as we possibly can?
I bolded that because it's important. It's my central point. What I'm referring to specifically in this case is the risk vs. reward in allowing people to legally obtain assault weapons. Restated, the question looks like this: If we can make it more difficult for people to obtain weapons designed specifically to kill lots of people in as little time as possible, shouldn't we?
Notice how I phrased that. I know that people will still get assault weapons. Again, and I can't state this enough: I get it. But can't we make it tougher to get them? What's wrong with this idea?
I'd like to take this time to attempt to adequately combat a couple of the things that are probably racing through your head at this moment.
But we can't punish everybody for the actions of a few bad people!
Yes, we can, and we should. Not because they deserve it (they don't), but because this just isn't worth it. There are a number of people who use cocaine responsibly, but it's still illegal, and it's illegal because it's dangerous. We're talking about an invention that was designed to fire absurdly high quantities of sharp, deadly projectiles as fast as we can possibly make them go. Whatever you good, responsible citizens use your assault rifles for, you cannot deny that they were created for combat and, ultimately, for killing people... And killing them really goddamn well.
Don't get me wrong: Assault rifles are fun. Really fun. I've shot them before. I want one, and I'm not joking. But let's be real... That's all they are. They're overkill for self-defense, and underkill for taking over the world. So at their best, they're really, really neat, and at their worst, they can be used as a tool for mass murder.
I hear the argument a lot that a person can kill a lot of people using a vehicle or a wrench or their fists or whatever, so maybe we should ban those as well. Goddammit. Stop it. You know damn well what you're doing when you make this argument. It's not unlike the type of connection that would form in the mind of a child. It's rooted not in logic but in petty bitterness. Stop it. Like in the above picture, these two things are not equal. Sharing a common characteristic does not make two things equal. Two does not equal seven just because they are both numbers, or because they can both be added to other numbers. You are not a table just because you have legs.
You're uncomfortable; curious, but uncomfortable. I can see that. You look like you're maybe already adopting a defensive position at your keyboard.
You know what this is about, don't you?
I'd like you to relax. Here's what I AM going to do: I'm going to talk about gun control in a pragmatic, sensible, objective-as-possible manner. Here's what I'm NOT going to do: take your guns. I'm going to repeat that: I, Josh, will not take your guns. I am a writer, not a sorcerer. You can read this particular entry about gun control, and when you are finished, you will still have whatever guns you had when you began. Barring some sort of obscure coincidence beyond my control, I can guarantee this. I swear it to you. Can you lower your weapons for a second and maybe open your mind? Wisdom and enlightenment are choices, and an open mind is a mandatory prerequisite. So relax and read and think for yourself. If you are still defensive, please stop reading now. You are wasting your own time and you are likely to aggravate every ounce of your preexisting bitterness, which you will then choose to pay forward, be it to your friends, your coworkers, or your progeny. If you are defensive, you will gain nothing but anger from this blog. The world needs less anger and bitterness, and more wisdom. So can you... You know... Can you lower your guns for a minute?
"Greeeeeeeaaaaat."
Good. Now that we got that out of the way, let's discuss a few things. I will make my stance clear: I do not believe that civilians (and non-active military members) should be allowed to purchase or possess assault weapons.
Ugh. There go your defenses again.
Put them down for a moment. I'm not talking about all guns. I will own a gun someday to protect my house, my family, and myself. The world is a scary place, and I am an untrusting person. There are bad people out there, and, heaven forbid, should I find myself on the wrong side of an altercation where my life or my family is in danger, I will not hesitate to fire upon my attacker with the intent to kill him (let's be realistic, it's always a 'him'). I imagine that it would have a profoundly traumatic effect on me, killing a man, but when faced with the two possible outcomes in this scenario, I will be so, SO thankful that I had the means to protect what was dear to me.
I will likely own rifles. I've never been much of a hunter, but I can see myself getting into it in the future. There are a number of things about hunting that I find fascinating, and I'd like to explore it further. I can literally see myself owning multiple firearms, and a couple of them will probably just be for fun.
I need you to remember that I said that, because the remainder of this blog, to the ignorant and/or the stupid (and/or the forgetful), will seem like an attack on guns in general. I will reference the above paragraphs repeatedly to remind you that this is the case, because if you are an advocate of guns, you will absolutely forget that I support them. It will be the defensiveness we spoke of earlier that does this to you. Please, I'm begging you, for as long as it takes to read one long blog, just open your mind. Ok?
Here we go.
I saw something recently that just horrified me. The following picture introduced itself into my awareness via, what else, Facebook. It appeared on my news feed three separate times from three separate acquaintances, all of whom are avid gun advocates. The picture needs no real introduction. Here it is:
"Ugh" (face palm)
What likely began as an attempt to simultaneously empower women and defend our right to own assault rifles has just taken a tragic turn toward the province of unparalleled ignorance.
As you can probably see, the author of this particular image is apparently equating the luxury of possessing an assault rifle with Rosa Parks' agonizing struggle to be treated more like a human being and less like an unwanted mutt. I realize that this particular stance doesn't encompass every gun advocate's views, but I'm still concerned. Somebody made this picture. In somebody's eyes, these are the exact same thing.
And there are people in the world passing these toxic ideas around. It's like a virus, but it's being spread intentionally. Instead of targeting our bodies, this poison is aimed at our souls.
Every idea presented in this picture screams of ignorance. The idea that this woman, who, judging from her attire, clearly thought she was going to Starbucks and not the wilderness, somehow needs an assault rifle. The idea that, if somebody asks you, "Why do you need an assault rifle,"a perfectly valid answer is, "Because I can have one." The idea that the Constitution is, apparently, omniscient.
And, of course, as I first pointed out, there is the fallacy of False Equivalence. Rosa Parks was treated as though she was less than human. She lived through one of the most unfathomably difficult times in American history, a time that was fueled by hatred, ignorance, and fear. While some of you may have had some difficulties, say, making friends in high school, nobody reading this blog has ever encountered such unwarranted discrimination in their life. I don't need to hear your life story for me to know that this is true.
The other woman in the picture, the one firing the assault rifle, probably broke a nail during the aforementioned firing session. If the world was really out to get her that day, she may have also gotten her nice clothes dirty.
I do not feel the need to elaborate on this ANY further.
And I apologize for the gender stereotyping. That was wrong of me. I was upset.
So let's talk about guns. They don't kill people, bad people kill people. No, I get that. I really do. When having an argument with people about this, they'll often fall back on this line of reasoning, stressing over and over and OVER again to me that this, you see, was not the gun's fault at all.
"Better make yourself comfy in there, Shooty McGun.
Your days of making good people do bad things are over."
Seriously. I get it.
So what do we do? We can't blame the guns, right? It's the people that we have to fix. Better access to mental health care! Less violence on TV and video games! And, above all else, let's go out and be BETTER GODDAMN PARENTS!!!!!! If we ALL just agree to treat each other better starting right this effing second, we can keep this from happening in the future!
You're not wrong; This is achievable. I've heard legends of a sort of magic dust that just makes everybody love each other and stuff, man. I'm not talking about that shit Frank sells when the sun goes down, either... This stuff is legal. If we can simply find the right wardrobe to Narnia, traverse the unforgiving Witchy Witch mountains or whatever the bullshit they're called, slay the dreaded Hufflepuffagus, and steal his second tail, then we can cure humanity of all hate and ignorance and pain OVERNIGHT.
I could do all of this. I would bear this burden, if I must. Please contact me to set up a time that I can use to inspect your closet.
...
Maybe we should start looking for a more practical solution?
Thank you. I'm glad to see that you finally came around. You see, it's not that the world is incapable of becoming a more loving place, it's just that, well, YOU try to accomplish that and see how far it gets you. We're looking at a centuries-long metamorphosis of the human attitude. We can take these steps to begin the process, but this will not be over quickly. If we'd like to reduce the number of people dying in bunches via assault rifle right now, we need to take away the other thing...
If we want to see a change now, we need to remove the gun.
Make no mistake, I am fully aware that death is a natural and inevitable consequence of being alive. I am also fully aware that people kill other people using a variety of methods. So the main point of this particular blog entry is not that we should take away everything that could possibly be used to cause death to human beings, it's this: If some of the Really Really Bad is avoidable without making outrageous sacrifices, then shouldn't we try to get rid of as much of that Bad as we possibly can?
I bolded that because it's important. It's my central point. What I'm referring to specifically in this case is the risk vs. reward in allowing people to legally obtain assault weapons. Restated, the question looks like this: If we can make it more difficult for people to obtain weapons designed specifically to kill lots of people in as little time as possible, shouldn't we?
Notice how I phrased that. I know that people will still get assault weapons. Again, and I can't state this enough: I get it. But can't we make it tougher to get them? What's wrong with this idea?
I'd like to take this time to attempt to adequately combat a couple of the things that are probably racing through your head at this moment.
But we can't punish everybody for the actions of a few bad people!
Yes, we can, and we should. Not because they deserve it (they don't), but because this just isn't worth it. There are a number of people who use cocaine responsibly, but it's still illegal, and it's illegal because it's dangerous. We're talking about an invention that was designed to fire absurdly high quantities of sharp, deadly projectiles as fast as we can possibly make them go. Whatever you good, responsible citizens use your assault rifles for, you cannot deny that they were created for combat and, ultimately, for killing people... And killing them really goddamn well.
Don't get me wrong: Assault rifles are fun. Really fun. I've shot them before. I want one, and I'm not joking. But let's be real... That's all they are. They're overkill for self-defense, and underkill for taking over the world. So at their best, they're really, really neat, and at their worst, they can be used as a tool for mass murder.
I hear the argument a lot that a person can kill a lot of people using a vehicle or a wrench or their fists or whatever, so maybe we should ban those as well. Goddammit. Stop it. You know damn well what you're doing when you make this argument. It's not unlike the type of connection that would form in the mind of a child. It's rooted not in logic but in petty bitterness. Stop it. Like in the above picture, these two things are not equal. Sharing a common characteristic does not make two things equal. Two does not equal seven just because they are both numbers, or because they can both be added to other numbers. You are not a table just because you have legs.
For example, if you're a minority living in Hollywood, you
may be more of a chair than anything.
Can we all agree that this is true? That a vehicle can be similarly catastrophic if operated by a bad person, but that there is a night-and-day difference in terms of what vehicles do for us (remember, I'm excluding the military here, but even then...) as a society when compared to what assault rifles do for us? Like in the picture of Rosa Parks above, that both of these rights are indeed protected by the Constitution, but that there is an astronomical difference in taking away Rosa's equality/basic human rights versus taking the assault rifle from that woman (we'll call her Tiffany) in the picture? Argue with this: Tiffany's going to be just fine, and you know what? So will you. I mean that. You're gonna be ok. Tiffany appears to be pretty sane, so even if she could obtain an assault rifle, it's unlikely that she'd shoot up a school with one. Here's the kicker: If Tiffany can't obtain an assault rifle, then she definitely won't shoot up a school with one.
People will continue to track down weapons like this illegally, but, like the more dangerous drugs, let's make this tougher to accomplish. I'm no saint, but I've got to be honest, I wouldn't even know where to start looking to obtain something illegally.
It's not foolproof, but you'll have a hard time denying that it makes things more difficult. To me, this seems like a good thing.
Now that we've agreed on that, we need to talk about this nonsense:
The Constitution protects my rights to bear arms.
It's not that you're wrong about this. I can't dispute that. It's just that there are some things you should probably consider when falling back on this argument. Like this: the 2nd Amendment was adopted with the rest of the Bill of Rights in 1791, or a little more than 220 years ago. If you don't understand how different things were back then, please allow me to provide some insight as to why this amendment was created:
People will continue to track down weapons like this illegally, but, like the more dangerous drugs, let's make this tougher to accomplish. I'm no saint, but I've got to be honest, I wouldn't even know where to start looking to obtain something illegally.
"Yeah we caught him asking for directions to 'the Black Market.' I know, right? We
told him it was on 3rd St. Then we maced him. Do you want to beat him first or second?"
It's not foolproof, but you'll have a hard time denying that it makes things more difficult. To me, this seems like a good thing.
Now that we've agreed on that, we need to talk about this nonsense:
The Constitution protects my rights to bear arms.
It's not that you're wrong about this. I can't dispute that. It's just that there are some things you should probably consider when falling back on this argument. Like this: the 2nd Amendment was adopted with the rest of the Bill of Rights in 1791, or a little more than 220 years ago. If you don't understand how different things were back then, please allow me to provide some insight as to why this amendment was created:
- To allow citizens to form an organized and armed militia.
- To prevent the government from becoming too powerful or tyrannical.
- As a means of self defense.
- To prevent invasion.
- To effectively prevent and combat uprisings, such as those involving goddamn slaves.
That's it. That's why the government wanted us to have guns. To point out how absurd this is in today's terms, I'm going to have some fun with this. Here is a list of sample headlines that I guarantee you WILL NOT be seeing in a U.S. paper anytime soon:
- SLAVE UPRISING AT LOCAL RANCH THWARTED BY HEAVILY ARMED FARMER
- CHINA THREATENS ATTACK ON U.S., DETERRED BY STERN MAN WITH AK-47
- CORRUPT GOVERNMENT DECLARES WAR ON OWN CITIZENS, LOSES
- MACHINE GUN MILITIA SEEN ORGANIZING, LOITERING AND STUFF
- LARGE BAND OF THIEVES MOWED DOWN BY BADASS DUAL-WIELDING STAY-AT-HOME DAD
Do you see what I'm getting at? The Constitution was brilliant... It was ahead of its time. But I don't think I'm being unpatriotic by pointing out that it's just a little bit outdated. You can buy guns now that fire more rounds in a minute than many soldiers fired in the entire Revolutionary War. If you showed George Washington a modern assault rifle, he would probably have you arrested for witchcraft. The very reason we even have amendments to the Constitution is because the Founding Fathers were able to recognize that they weren't going to get it perfect the first time. The Constitution, for all that it got right, is flawed. Hell, even some of the amendments need fixing every once in a while. The 21st Amendment exists specifically because the 18th Amendment wasn't really working out. America made a mistake, and then fixed it maybe a decade later.
We're big fans of the 21st Amendment. BIG fans. Huge.
It's healthy for you to find a way to recognize that, in the last two-and-a-quarter centuries, times have changed a little bit. Allow me to illustrate with one of my favorite sciency phenomena:
When America signed the Declaration of Independence, it would be another 50 years before human beings figured out how to take the first successful photograph of, well, anything. To compare, at the end of last year (2012), scientists photographed a galaxy that's more than 13 billion light-years away. For anybody keeping track, that's about 80 sextillion (a billion trillion, for the layperson) miles.
We've literally advanced to the point that much of what we do scientifically is bound not by our tools, but by time itself. We have cameras that are more than capable of taking pictures of things we can't even see yet because the light that reflects off of those objects won't be here for another hundred or billion or trillion years. We've figured out how to do things that we kind of just have to wait around for. To the best of our scientific knowledge, outside of Usain Bolt, nothing moves faster than light. And guess what? We're fucking waiting on it.
When America signed the Declaration of Independence, it would be another 50 years before human beings figured out how to take the first successful photograph of, well, anything. To compare, at the end of last year (2012), scientists photographed a galaxy that's more than 13 billion light-years away. For anybody keeping track, that's about 80 sextillion (a billion trillion, for the layperson) miles.
We've literally advanced to the point that much of what we do scientifically is bound not by our tools, but by time itself. We have cameras that are more than capable of taking pictures of things we can't even see yet because the light that reflects off of those objects won't be here for another hundred or billion or trillion years. We've figured out how to do things that we kind of just have to wait around for. To the best of our scientific knowledge, outside of Usain Bolt, nothing moves faster than light. And guess what? We're fucking waiting on it.
Yeah.
Yea', the Constitution is a little outdated. Unfortunately for you, assault-riflers, so is your argument. Human beings are amazing creatures. But for all the forward-thinking that our society encourages in terms of progress, we are surprisingly willing to fall back on an archaic document because we see it as a sort of trump card that gives us what we want. This is a terrifyingly elementary behavior. It frightens me that human beings are not only capable of this reasoning, they're prone to it.
The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the people from falling victim to a corrupt government. Assault rifles are completely irrelevant in this discussion. I'm going to be very clear about something, Mr. Vigilante... If the government wants you dead, you are absolutely going to die. I'm not saying that this is even remotely likely, I'm simply crushing the awesome-but-insane dreams of the guy who fantasizes about saving the people from the government using his own personal armory. It's not like the higher-ups meet in secret and discuss attacking the citizens of America only to be deterred by our fast-shooty guns. If for some bizarre, improbable reason they want us dead, that is EXACTLY what's going to happen.
Im a big fan of statistics, and I know that they tell a story. I also know that statistics can be taken and twisted and misused. If you have a theory about anything, you will be able to find a study and a data set that will, at the bare minimum, provide some support for said theory. I don't have the statistics in front of me for recent gun deaths, and I'm not going to take the time to Google them. I'm aware that there are dozens, maybe hundreds of things that kill more people every year than assault rifles. Again, I get it. So, in 2012, 'X' amount of people died from vehicle accidents, and 'Y' died from assault rifles. The fact that 'X' is more than 'Y' by 10 or 20 or 100 times doesn't mean that 'Y' isn't still too big.
Are we starting to see what I'm getting at? I'm not an anti-gun, peace-preaching hippy... I'm just a pragmatic realist. I see a problem with a product that we really, REALLY don't need to have, and I'm making a case for why we should fix it. The police need assault rifles. The military needs assault rifles. You and I? We want assault rifles. And be honest with yourself here, please. If you want an assault rifle, you want them because they are, in scientific terms, "pretty effing shweet." Even I think this. But you don't need one.
People will still kill. They will use other means, and they may even use other guns. This is a certainty. But when the reward for having assault rifles is so minimal, we HAVE to pay more attention to the risk. At their best, they're fun... At their worst, they're killing machines. Keep your hunting rifles and pistols, but please, let those in excess go.
Let's make assault weapons tougher for the layperson to obtain. Let's make it more difficult to kill people in bunches. Let's give up that fun thing we sometimes do out in the country (not that thing...), the one where we go out and blow the living hell out of some beer cans because fuck yeah, assault rifles. Let's remember instead what they're capable of when a human being has finally gone over the edge.
We can't stop death. We can't fix murder. But we can do something. Can't we? Am I crazy?
Here's the problem: We can, but it's going to require all of you to help. What I'm about to say is going to hurt you, and it's going to hurt badly...
You're going to have to give up some of your guns.
The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the people from falling victim to a corrupt government. Assault rifles are completely irrelevant in this discussion. I'm going to be very clear about something, Mr. Vigilante... If the government wants you dead, you are absolutely going to die. I'm not saying that this is even remotely likely, I'm simply crushing the awesome-but-insane dreams of the guy who fantasizes about saving the people from the government using his own personal armory. It's not like the higher-ups meet in secret and discuss attacking the citizens of America only to be deterred by our fast-shooty guns. If for some bizarre, improbable reason they want us dead, that is EXACTLY what's going to happen.
Im a big fan of statistics, and I know that they tell a story. I also know that statistics can be taken and twisted and misused. If you have a theory about anything, you will be able to find a study and a data set that will, at the bare minimum, provide some support for said theory. I don't have the statistics in front of me for recent gun deaths, and I'm not going to take the time to Google them. I'm aware that there are dozens, maybe hundreds of things that kill more people every year than assault rifles. Again, I get it. So, in 2012, 'X' amount of people died from vehicle accidents, and 'Y' died from assault rifles. The fact that 'X' is more than 'Y' by 10 or 20 or 100 times doesn't mean that 'Y' isn't still too big.
Are we starting to see what I'm getting at? I'm not an anti-gun, peace-preaching hippy... I'm just a pragmatic realist. I see a problem with a product that we really, REALLY don't need to have, and I'm making a case for why we should fix it. The police need assault rifles. The military needs assault rifles. You and I? We want assault rifles. And be honest with yourself here, please. If you want an assault rifle, you want them because they are, in scientific terms, "pretty effing shweet." Even I think this. But you don't need one.
People will still kill. They will use other means, and they may even use other guns. This is a certainty. But when the reward for having assault rifles is so minimal, we HAVE to pay more attention to the risk. At their best, they're fun... At their worst, they're killing machines. Keep your hunting rifles and pistols, but please, let those in excess go.
Let's make assault weapons tougher for the layperson to obtain. Let's make it more difficult to kill people in bunches. Let's give up that fun thing we sometimes do out in the country (not that thing...), the one where we go out and blow the living hell out of some beer cans because fuck yeah, assault rifles. Let's remember instead what they're capable of when a human being has finally gone over the edge.
We can't stop death. We can't fix murder. But we can do something. Can't we? Am I crazy?
Here's the problem: We can, but it's going to require all of you to help. What I'm about to say is going to hurt you, and it's going to hurt badly...
You're going to have to give up some of your guns.
It's not going to stop all the killing and the violence in the world, but it's going to help. Here's how we do it:
1. Outlaw automatic weapons, as well as all other weapons deemed unnecessary by a committee of experts who are more qualified to make that distinction than I am. There is a reason we're not allowed to have rocket launchers... The same logic should apply to automatic weapons. Possession of one is a felony. We don't go searching people's homes, and we don't force people to give them up, but if you're caught, you're arrested. Keep your stubbornness and your outrageous firearms at your own risk.
2. Create a waiting period (maybe two weeks or so) to purchase ANY firearm. If you're a responsible gun user, you'll be fine with this, because you're decent and intelligent and you don't need a gun right this second. If you do, you're up to no good. Take emotion out of the equation, and give somebody who's just been devastated by whatever the opportunity to reclaim control of their brain. Crimes of passion, impulsive decisions, choices a rational person would regret... These rates will all free-fall. This idea is courtesy of Zachary Arama, and while I have little doubt that he stole it from somewhere else, I have no proof. Therefore, for now, this is his idea, and it's so simple and brilliant that it's disgusting we haven't implemented it yet.
3. Conduct an extensive background check during this period. I do not feel the need to explain why.
4. Let go of your petty, greedy, selfish ways and do something to help this world out. If you need an automatic weapon, come armed with a better excuse than a) because I can, b) because I want one badly enough that it's pretty much a need, or c) because BECAUSE. Be intelligent here. You can find other ways to entertain yourself, and you're never going to need this gun. Let's get rid of some danger, because, for lack of a better way to phrase it, that's just a good thing to do.
There, I think I'm finally done for now. I'll close by reminding you that I love guns. I'm going to have some, and I think that it's important for you to, as well, if that's what you want. But when we're talking about something that's clearly excessive, let's make it illegal... Tougher to find... Tougher to get... Tougher to keep. In fact, let's just be tougher in general. Tougher on guns, tougher on criminals, and tougher when we have to give up something we like. We're almost adults now, kind of. We're too old, too mature, too intelligent to throw a temper tantrum when the grownups take our toys.
Aren't we???
1. Outlaw automatic weapons, as well as all other weapons deemed unnecessary by a committee of experts who are more qualified to make that distinction than I am. There is a reason we're not allowed to have rocket launchers... The same logic should apply to automatic weapons. Possession of one is a felony. We don't go searching people's homes, and we don't force people to give them up, but if you're caught, you're arrested. Keep your stubbornness and your outrageous firearms at your own risk.
2. Create a waiting period (maybe two weeks or so) to purchase ANY firearm. If you're a responsible gun user, you'll be fine with this, because you're decent and intelligent and you don't need a gun right this second. If you do, you're up to no good. Take emotion out of the equation, and give somebody who's just been devastated by whatever the opportunity to reclaim control of their brain. Crimes of passion, impulsive decisions, choices a rational person would regret... These rates will all free-fall. This idea is courtesy of Zachary Arama, and while I have little doubt that he stole it from somewhere else, I have no proof. Therefore, for now, this is his idea, and it's so simple and brilliant that it's disgusting we haven't implemented it yet.
3. Conduct an extensive background check during this period. I do not feel the need to explain why.
4. Let go of your petty, greedy, selfish ways and do something to help this world out. If you need an automatic weapon, come armed with a better excuse than a) because I can, b) because I want one badly enough that it's pretty much a need, or c) because BECAUSE. Be intelligent here. You can find other ways to entertain yourself, and you're never going to need this gun. Let's get rid of some danger, because, for lack of a better way to phrase it, that's just a good thing to do.
There, I think I'm finally done for now. I'll close by reminding you that I love guns. I'm going to have some, and I think that it's important for you to, as well, if that's what you want. But when we're talking about something that's clearly excessive, let's make it illegal... Tougher to find... Tougher to get... Tougher to keep. In fact, let's just be tougher in general. Tougher on guns, tougher on criminals, and tougher when we have to give up something we like. We're almost adults now, kind of. We're too old, too mature, too intelligent to throw a temper tantrum when the grownups take our toys.
Aren't we???
Excellently put, Josh! I completely agree.
ReplyDelete