My Thoughts on Gun Control

In August, 2010, a man holding a gun went into Sullivan Central High School in Blountville, TN. He was confronted by the school resource officer, Carolyn Gudger, who pulled her weapon and held him at bay. Other Sullivan County Sheriff Deputies arrived. When the gunman was cornered, he made an aggressive move with his weapon toward Officer Gudger, and was promptly shot to death by the officers at hand. Other than the shooter, no one was killed.

In December, 2012 (2 days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary), a man went into a restaurant in San Antonio, TX with a gun. He began shooting. People fled into the movie theater adjacent to the restaurant, followed by the shooter. The shooter ran into the bathroom. An off duty Buxar County sheriff deputy was working security at the movie theater. She followed the man into the bathroom, where she shot him. Two people were shot (including the shooter), but no one was killed.

On January 4, 2013, a woman in Loganville, GA was at home with her 9 year old twins when she noticed from an upstairs window a man trying to get into her home. She took her children and hid in a crawl space. The man broke into her home with a crow bar, and eventually found her and her children in the crawl space. She shot him with the .38 caliber handgun she was holding. She fired 5 rounds before escaping with her children. Her husband, with whom she had been on the phone during the entire incident, called 9-1-1 from his office, and heard his wife shoot the man. Police arrived, and took the man to the hospital. No one was killed.

Gun control has been in the news a lot lately. It was sparked by the Sandy Hook School shooting in Connecticut, in which a young man went into Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children. This story has a very strong emotional impact on us. I remember the day it happened. I was working at home when I heard there had been another school shooting. I was in my car later that afternoon listening to the news when I learned the full scope. I was on my way to pick up my kindergartner from his school, and I wept thinking of my own son.

Incidents like Sandy Hook, Columbine, the shootings at Virginia Tech, the theatre shooting in Aurora, CO, and the attempt on Representative Gabby Giffords’s life are highly emotionally charged. The conversation about gun control, however, cannot be one that is based on emotions. All of these incidents are anecdotal. They can neither be used to provide support for stricter gun control nor as reasons why less gun control would be advantageous, because not one of these single incidents tells the whole story. If we’re going to have a legitimate conversation about gun control, we need to be aware of the facts.

Factcheck.org did a great piece reporting statistics and taking on the exaggerated claims made by both sides of the argument. According to Factcheck’s valid research, the number of gun murders was down in 2010 (2011 statistics were not yet available). As a matter fact the number of gun murders, 3.59 people per 100,000 people, was at its lowest since 1981. Likewise, gun aggravated assault was at its lowest rate since 2004 at 50.8 people suffering a gun aggravated assault out of every 100,000 people. Robberies that involved a gun were also down at their lowest rate since 2004, at 45.8 per 100,000 people.  At the same time, gun ownership and gun manufacturing have both increased in recent history. That means there are more people owning guns in the United States than ever before, but fewer guns being used for murder, assault and robbery.

These statistics support those who say that low levels of gun control is a more reasonable stance.

Nonfatal gun injuries during assault have increased in the United States, being at their highest rate since 2008. 17.8 people per 100,000 were nonfatally wounded in an assault involving a gun in 2011. What this means is that while it is less likely due to the decrease in gun aggravated assaults reported above that you will be involved in an assault in which a gun is used, if you are, it is more likely that you will be injured in the event. The total number of events has decreased, but the incidents are becoming more violent. In 2010, there was an increase in suicides involving the use of a gun, reaching its highest rate since 1998. In 2010, 6.28 people per 100,000 killed themselves using guns.

It’s definitely a mixed bag.

There’s two important points in Factcheck’s article that I think bear repeating.

1.       The argument that concealed-carry laws reduce crime is dubious. The fact is that in states and counties where concealed carry is allowed, crime has gone down. The problem is that crime is down universally, even in states and counties that do not allow concealed carry. There is insufficient evidence to make the causal claim that concealed carry causes crime to decrease. In other words, allowing concealed carry may have an effect, but it is too difficult given the fact that crime is down universally to show that concealed carry causes the decrease. Statistically, you can say that places that have allowed concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime. Statistically, you can also say that places that do not allow concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime.

2.       The second point is that the claim that increased access to guns would cause an increase in crime is simply wrong. In places where gun access has been further deregulated (guns are more accessible), there has still been the reduction in crime that we discuss in point number 1. Allowing greater access to guns does not increase gun crime.

I think there is an important question to ask when considering a gun law that limits a person’s 2^nd amendment right to own and bear arms: Will this law have the effect that is intended?

The shooter in Sandy Hook had a history of hospitalizations and mental health problems. There is currently legislation that precludes those who have a similar history from owning or using guns. He didn’t own the guns. He stole them. The existing gun law preventing him from having guns did not deter the crime.

Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws in the United States. The so called “assault weapon” that the shooter had in his possession at the time of the shooting was actually illegal to buy, sell or own in Connecticut. His mother possessed that gun illegally. Again, he stole it from her. The existing gun law did not prevent his mother from buying and owning the gun. The existing gun law did not deter him from using it. The existing gun law had no effect on the crime.

The shooter in New York who set his house on fire to lure authorities to his home and then shot two firemen was not allowed to own guns due to his criminal history. He manipulated his neighbor’s daughter into buying the guns for him. It was illegal for him to have the guns he used. The existing gun laws did not deter him from obtaining and using the weapons.

In Columbine, it was illegal for those teenage boys to have the guns they used in the shooting. The existing gun laws (again, Colorado has some of the most strict gun laws in the U.S., and this event occurred while the so-called “assault weapons” ban was in effect), did not deter this tragedy.

The shooter at Virginia Tech had a history of disruptive and bizarre behavior. He had a history of mental illness, but under Virginia law at the time, it was not reportable to the information bureau that would have alerted those who performed background checks during the purchase of guns. The sellers were not alerted to his possible mental health problems. Since then, the laws have been tightened in Virginia concerning this.

Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Gifford and 18 others, killing 6, bought his firearm legally from a business, not an independent, private dealer. That means he had to have submitted to a background check that failed to recognize his prior legal problems, including misdemeanor drug use charges. Loughner had never submitted to a mental health evaluation, although anyone familiar with his history can easily recognize the symptoms of the onset of schizophrenia in his history. He had no history of violence, only bizarre and occasionally disruptive behavior. Arizona has some of the most liberal gun laws in the U.S., but it was illegal for him to carry the weapon into that mall. The existing gun laws, such as they were, did not deter his actions.

James Holmes, the shooter in the Aurora, CO theater owned his guns legally and handled them legally, until he took them into the theatre, where he was not allowed to have them. He had no prior history of mental health treatment and no prior history of violent crime. Do we discriminate on who can own a weapon and who can’t based on the possibility that the person might do something illegal with the guns? How do we make that determination?

Instead, we have 2 primary types of legislation that people want to introduce. The first is legislation that will make it more difficult for people to obtain guns, for example, by tightening the process of background checks. That doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked. It didn’t work for the shooter in Connecticut. It didn’t work for the shooter in New York. It didn’t work for the teenagers at Columbine High School. The laws would also create greater restrictions on the purchase of guns at gun shows from private vendors, a method which does not require background checks. Notice that none of the guns used in any of these crimes were purchased from private vendors. They were all originally purchased through sellers who would have had to run a background check on the buyer. Laws don’t matter to criminals, or those intent on doing evil. They will get around those laws. Making it harder for people to get guns isn’t effective in deterring gun crime.

The second type of gun control legislation proposed is based on the type of gun, making it illegal to own certain types of guns. For example, some say we should ban “assault weapons.” I would like to know, from someone who believes this, what their definition of an “assault weapon” is. It’s obvious to me that many people who are proposing to ban certain types of weapons don’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to guns.

To get really, really, REALLY basic, you have 3 types of guns: revolvers, semi-automatic weapons, and fully automatic weapons. I’m sorry for all my gun expert friends out there, because I know that’s not all there is.

Owning a fully automatic weapon is illegal in the United States. What that means is that if you legally purchase a gun in the U.S., it is either going to be a revolver or a semi-automatic. You can have a semi-automatic handgun, more commonly known as a pistol, or a semi-automatic rifle. Functionally speaking, no matter what the gun looks like, there is no difference in the mechanism of operation between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle. What does it mean that the gun, handgun or rifle, is a semi-automatic? Basically that means that when you pull the trigger one time, one bullet is fired, and the next bullet is fed into the chamber. Semi-automatics do not fire several rounds with 1 trigger pull. You have to pull the trigger each time you fire the weapon. 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet.

Banning so-called “assault weapons” is to ban a gun, not on its functionality (it works through the same mechanism as every other gun), nor on its lethality (I don’t think it would matter if you got shot in the head with a handgun or a rifle), but on its looks. That’s it. This gun looks scary, so let’s call it an assault weapon.

The argument that a person can fire with a high capacity clip 30 rounds in less than a minute is ridiculous to anyone who owns a gun. I own semi-automatic pistols. With normal capacity clips of 7 rounds, I can fire a full clip, pop it, replace it, and be ready to fire in 15 seconds or less. My normal clips hold 7 rounds, but with the first clip I usually hold 7 rounds and 1 in the chamber (for a total of 8 in the first clip). That means in 60 seconds, with normal capacity clips, I can fire at least 29 rounds, probably more if I didn’t care about aim. High capacity clips do not make a gun more dangerous. A gun is only as dangerous as the person who is holding it.

And that’s the crux of the matter. Gun control isn’t about controlling guns; it’s about controlling people. Nobody, including gun owners, wants guns in the hands of bad guys. The fact is that guns are going to be in the hands of bad guys no matter what laws are passed. That’s what makes them bad guys. They don’t follow the laws. So by making gun ownership harder, impinging on the right of the people to bear arms, we take the guns out of the hands of people who are responsible, law abiding citizens, like me, who keeps his guns under lock and key when I’m not carrying or using them at the firing range.

One can see that the issue is not as simple as creating more gun laws that will be disregarded by those intent on doing harm. It’s also not as simple as creating more databases that people can get around, or that are ineffective against those who would not meet the criteria for a red flag. A better conversation to have is about mental illness.

How these shooters got their guns is not the common denominator.

What types of guns these shooters had is not the common denominator.

That all of these shooters had mental illness in varying types and degrees is the common denominator.

So why aren’t we talking more about mental illness, since that’s what really linked all of these shooters?

When I was thinking about getting a gun for protection, I talked to a retired police officer about it. He told me something I’ll never forget. He said, “The question you need to ask yourself before you buy a gun is whether or not you would be able to kill another human being. The time to decide that you can’t do that is not when you are standing in front of a person who has broken into your home and you have the gun pointed at him. If you decide at that moment that you can’t pull the trigger, then you’ve just given that guy your gun, and he’ll use it on you. Before you buy the gun, decide whether or not you will be able to use it.”

I made that decision. If someone threatens the safety of Lesley and my children, I’ll shoot him. I have no doubt in my mind. Not everyone can say the same. Those who don’t make the same decision as me, that’s fine. I have no problem with you deciding that you do not want to own a gun. You take your chances on the situation. I will use my gun to defend my family.

I will keep my gun to defend my family no matter what laws are passed. Bottom line. It’s used so often that it’s become cliché, but I can’t get around it: “If you outlaw guns, you will make law-abiding gun owners outlaws.” I don’t want to be an outlaw, but I will be. If I have to make the choice between defending my family and letting them be victims of a crime, I will always choose defending my family.

There is so much more that can be said, and I’m willing to have the conversation with anyone who wants to have it, but this is my stance.

I have the right to defend myself with a gun. It’s guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment. I will not give up that right. I hope and literally pray that I will never have to use my gun. I will not hesitate to do so if I have to protect my family.