Tag Archive: gun control


I rarely interact on Social Media, especially on Facebook.  I hang out on Twitter, comment from time to time, but I avoid arguments, and disagreements at all costs.

Why?

I am tired of it.  Since November of 2016, I do little more than read others people’s FB posts, I almost never post to my timeline.  For me, there is precious little that is worth reading any longer, and, add to that, there is nothing worth responding to.   All I ever see is the latest “I hate Trump” or “MAGA” type post. Or the latest “Anti gun” or “Pro 2A” post.  The problem with the posts are not the content, but, rather the attitude with which they are served up.  It’s a “this is what I believe, and f*** you and go to hell if you don’t agree”  No one has rational discussions any longer, and I do mean no one.

I am also tired of the conspiracy theories surrounding, well, you name it; Las Vegas, Parkland, Newtown, etc. etc.  The worst part about all of this, is these posts are coming from people that I know to be intelligent, and, I thought, reasonable.  Many of them old classmates, and others that I have known for 30 years.  Politics, and one’s political views have become the yardstick, (and with some people the only yardstick used to measure someone’s worth.) .  I have witnessed lifelong friendships come to an end, over a vote, or a political stance.  There is no “opinion” any more, there is “My post is irrefutable fact, and f*** you if you don’t think it’s true”.  People post things that they find, somewhere in the deep, dark bowels of the internet, as truth.  Not only truth, but incontrovertible, irrefutable, truth, because their favorite website, blogger, or pundit said it.  In this day and age, it’s not “for” or “against”, no.  It’s “you must believe or you are a heretic, and must be destroyed”.  It happens on both sides.

If you are pro 2nd Amendment, you are branded a “baby killer”, an “NRA Terrorist” or you “Support the murder of children” and the ownership of “weapons of war”.  If you want support Gun Control, then you area “gun grabbing communist” or a “traitor”, or an “anti-freedom leftist”.  No quarter is given in these arguments.  There is no discourse, only insults, and if it’s a woman posting her support of  2A, it’s the most vile sexual type of insults I have ever seen.  There are threats, and more insults.  Hashtags are thrown around like so many bean bags.  Frequently posts are in all caps, as people become more and more unhinged.  Eventually the donnybrook loses steam, and everyone is on to something else, but not before feelings are hurt, anger flairs and relationships are strained, if not broken.  I am amazed at the hurtful things people, especially family members, say to one another over a discussion of politics.  Isn’t family supposed to be better than that?  It is the disagreement that severe that some stop talking to siblings or parents?  How crappy is that?  I don’t always agree with my brothers, or my sister, but I would never, ever stop talking to them over their stance on something.  My dad, if he were still among us, would not stand for it.  I feel bad for those people who feel that a relationship, especially a long-term one, be it familial or romantic, has to end, because of a political opinion.

I hate all of the stupid fighting, and when one side presents the other with facts, then the arguing switches to whose “facts” are more factual.  We get our news and information from many sources these days, unfortunately, we all know about “fake news”, and in many cases, the “facts” as presented, depending on which “side” is presenting them can vary.  In more than a few cases, news sites will post a story, and include facts that only support their side of the argument, then other people quote that source as being proof that they are right, while the other side of the argument cites a story about the same issue from a news site, or blogger, or pundit, that includes information that supports what they have to say.  It’s exhausting.  Woe to the person who enters into the fray, in an attempt to be reasonable, cites a balanced story on the issue, then they get torn into from both sides.  The worst part about all of it, are the vile insults that people hurl at one another, either strangers they don’t know, or people that they do.  It’s unreal, and it almost hurts to watch it.

An example of what I describe above, goes like this:  I will use the latest raging debate over guns, that is burning up social media.

Friend A; (a long time friend of mine) Posted a story about a study done by two criminologists, citing the number of times a gun is used to defend life and property, and stops a crime in progress.  He posted his comments, as well as a link to the study, so anyone reading his post can avail themselves of the information, and read the study in it’s entirety.   Several people posted comments after reading the story, and the study.  The comments are all positive.

Stranger A:  this person pops up in a comment, after a news story that this person believes “debunks” the study by the two criminologists.  The news story takes the study to task, and selectively cites facts that support the gun control side of the argument.  So Stranger A, goes off on a paragraph long screed about the NRA, and evil corporations funding gun companies, buying politicians, and etc, etc, etc.  Friend A politely asks Stranger A to read the study.  Stranger A replies he doesn’t need to because the article he read speaks for itself, and he knows the study was funded by the NRA and the gun makers (it wasn’t) so, of course it is going to back up their claims.

It’s this kind of attitude, the “If you are against gun control, you are for the deaths of children” is really rather tiresome, and it is a tactic used by many in an argument to deflect from their arguments shaky ground.  It is also used as a way to end the argument, because the tactic forces the other person to argue that they are not “for the killing of children”, which then puts the anti-gun person on the offensive.  Or, it forces the other person to walk away from the argument, because it just got stupid.  The tactic is designed to shut down debate, and silence opposition.  People on both sides use it.  It’s not a “left” or “right” thing.  So, the above exchange over the study went back and  forth, but the problem is, everyone wound up arguing with Stranger A about how they are not for the killing of children.  It was several comments before someone else got the argument back on track.

The point of the anecdote above is an example of what typically happens on social media.  The other phenomenon is the habit among many to read the headline of a posted story, and then comment on the inaccuracy of the story   It is embarrassing when someone I know, and always figured was intelligent, decides to go off on an article they did not even read, and puts their intellectual laziness on display.  It is amazing to me how little there is in the way of critical thinking.  What ever happened to analysis, reading comprehension, and logical thought?

It is indeed sad, that the current level of debate on Twitter, and Facebook resembles an argument between a bunch of 12 year old kids on the school playground.  It really is.  The crises that face this nation are not going to get solved by emotional outbursts, name calling or finger-pointing.  The problem is, no one wants to hear the other side out.  It is as if we all want our side to be the only one that prevails.  When you get right down to it, the truth to just about any of the issues is much more nuanced, it hardly black and white.  In the studies mentioned in my anecdote, each one can, when facts and passages in the study are cherry-picked and taken out of context, support either the pro-gun, or the anti-gun side of the argument.  However, that kind of cherry picking does little to shed light on the problem of violence in this country, and what effective steps can be taken to curb the violence.   The same could be said of any study, on any of the issues that face the nation.  The sad fact is, that any side in an any argument wants to be the “only” side that is right.  It’s as if being right, and defeating one’s enemies is more important than solving, or working towards solving an issue.  “All or nothing” rarely works.  When one takes a position that the only way to solve an issue is an “all or nothing” solution, then people on the other side of the issue, are going to be unwilling to talk, much less compromise, or reach an agreement.  This is also how fights start, because once an argument gets to the point where one side feels compelled to use force to convince the other side, then all is lost.

All I know is, and I urge my kids to do this all of the time;  If you are going to debate a question, come to the table with facts, and research, and also come to the table with an understanding demeanor.  Disagreement is not a personal attack.  One can understand the other side’s point of view, without resorting to personal attacks, name calling, and the like.  If you have made your point, and the other person, or group, still disagrees, then, move on.  You have made your point, you stood by your argument, and that’s it.  One cannot change another’s mind, well, can rarely change it.  The most that can be done is “agree to disagree” and move on.  There is nothing wrong with that, either.  Everyone has different beliefs on everything, from the big issues of the day, to the question of whether or not a hot dog is a sandwich. (it’s not.  Stating my position right now) or whether or not ketchup belongs on that same hot dog (It doesn’t, at least if you bought it from a hot dog stand.  If you made it at home, then, ketchup is permissible).  It is those differences that make us who we are, and one is not “less” because one believes differently than someone else on any given subject.  We sometimes forget we are human, and we should never dehumanize someone else over a disagreement  Ever.  It’s wrong, and leads to all kinds of scary things on a larger scale.

For those interested.  The link posted by my friend is below.  Read it and decide.  The article cites at least 3 studies and has links to them.  Read it.  Thank you.  Article my friend posted  I offer no opinions here.

Advertisements

Gun Control.

When you get right down to it, it is an argument that is probably never going to end.

Before I get into it. I am pro gun, and I am pro 2nd Amendment.  If I had the money, I would probably own some firearms. A good friend of mine has a pair of M1 Garands that I covet…(The WWII historian in me….)

Whenever there is a mass shooting, such as the Aurora, CO. theatre, or the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, the folks  on both sides of the debate, step into the spotlight.  I keep hearing both sides, and in listening to their arguments, it is truly an “all or nothing” fight.  Pro gun Advocates will not budge from “shall not be infringed” and the Anti-Gun zealots will not budge from “ban all guns everywhere”.

I often wonder, and I have debated with friends, and family, if there could ever be such a thing as “reasonable restrictions” on gun purchases, etc.  (I shudder to even use the word “restriction” here) When that subject comes up, one must begin to think:  “What constitutes reasonable”?

Is there even such a thing?

Both sides of the argument say “No” in the loudest voices possible.

So, I set out to explore, theorize, think about, whatever, would constitute a “reasonable” restriction.  Here in Illinois, one is required to register with the State Police, and obtain a Firearm owner’s Identification Card (or FOID) before purchasing a firearm.  Most other states do not require such.  In Illinois, one is also subject to a criminal background check before being allowed to purchase a weapon.  I have heard that these restrictions, if you want to call them that, are considered “reasonable” because it doesn’t “infringe” on ownership, it just forces you to wait a few days. (Which, when you think about it is an infringement). The logic behind that line of thinking goes something like this: If we force would-be gun owners to wait a few days, someone who is purchasing a gun to commit a crime, might change their mind, while waiting for their gun.  First of all, most criminals obtain guns illegally in the first place. So, the “reasonable” criteria went out the window on that one.

The more I thought about what constitutes “reasonable” would be considered “restrictive” by the pro-gun crowd, and “not restrictive enough” by the anti-gun crowd.

My friend, the M1 Garand owner is very much in favor of Concealed Carry. Something most gun-hating liberals froth at the mouth over when they hear those words.  I am in favor of CC as well.  I simply think it’s a good idea. So, when thinking about what constitutes “reasonable”, I began to trip over the same thing: What one would consider reasonable, both sides of the argument are not going to agree to, because it either restricts, or isn’t restrictive enough.

There seems to be no compromise on this issue, and even, in my own mind, I struggle to compromise.  A “common sense” approach? Who is going to define what is “common sense” when it comes to gun ownership. I have thought that, perhaps a mandatory training class on the use, and storage of the weapon, perhaps held by one’s local police department.  I mean, “common sense” would tell one, that if one buys a firearm, then one should be trained in its use, storage and cleaning,  A mandatory shooting class, perhaps?  Perhaps one that would teach the new gun owner how to load, sight, and fire. But, then, anyone that I know that has bought a gun, the first thing they do is learn how to use it, and take courses on how to use it in defense of their home and family.  So, making such a thing mandatory might be seen as “too restrictive”, in addition to redundant. And, the anti-gun folks would think something like that would be beyond crazy, because if you teach someone to use a weapon…they might use it. Or, they would want the class to focus on making  its use as difficult as possible. Also, according my friend, most, if not all gun shops offer beginners courses on firearm ownership, safety, firing, cleaning, etc. It would be up to the gun purchaser to sign up for those classes.

The gun argument, if anything, is more emotional, than it is logical, especially from the anti-gun crowd.  Both sides use statistics, numbers, and other arguments to persuade, and trot out emotional charged anecdotes to make their cases.  Unfortunately the anti-gun crowd fails miserably in this realm, because they trot out the same tired old stories.  In my mind, an armed person, who knows what they are doing, can be a deterrent to a criminal, or other individual who wishes to do harm.  Criminals like to live as well, and most of them are not going to take unnecessary chances, none of them want to face down their would be victim, or victims if they are armed.  The anti-gun crowd doesn’t think so.  They think one more armed person is going to add to the problem.  Or, even worse, that the criminal will take, and use the gun against the person trying to defend themselves.

So, as I think about things further, I begin to realize, that in all honesty, there is no solution. And, there probably shouldn’t be. The main problem in this society, is not the guns. It’s the people. It’s the lack of respect for life.  The lack of morality. The lack of respect for right and wrong. And, the need, for whatever reason, to meet any slight, either real, or perceived, with deadly force.  The real problem, lies within us.  I know, from my long experience as a 9-1-1 Operator and fire fighter, there are always going to be violent, hateful, destructive people, who are going to prey on society as a whole, or those they perceive as weaker, or more vulnerable than the rest, and because of that, having the right, and ability to defend oneself is a necessity.

The other thing I also realize, that the anti-gun crowd is not interested in protecting rights, or anything like that.  They just want to disarm us, because, in their convoluted logic, that makes for a safer society.  However, real logic would dictate that our society would be anything but.

The conclusion I have come to is that there really isn’t a reasonable solution to this argument, or, maybe  the way things are, is perfectly reasonable.  Some people in our society can’t live with that.