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 2nd 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 2nd 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment