Johnny Get Yer Gun.

I have been debating with myself whether I should write this or not. I was afraid this sort of subject matter would be too serious, too dark, and move my blog in a direction away from the usual humor I project in my posts.

I put myself in the place of those parents in Newton, Connecticut. I imagined I was waiting to see my child emerge, and imagining the amount of terror, sadness and insanity, I'd suffer, as time rolled on without seeing my beloved boys emerge from all that chaos. I feel fortunate that I can only imagine. I saw my children that day come home from school, unlike some of those parents in Connecticut.

Lately it's been a whirlwind on the issue of gun control. My own news-feed on Facebook, seems to follow the ebb and flow of thought on the issue, and I'm pretty much unnerved with pundits on both sides. Despite the best of intentions, the most vocal, seem to have no problem standing on these 26 deaths in order to prop up their own agendas on gun control. I myself, don't believe it is too soon to talk about it. Many pundits, years from now, will try to invoke the feelings of this week, in order to make their points clear. So why delay it? At the same time I keep in mind that we've been at war for over the past decade, and have seen our freedoms whittled away in the name of public safety.

I know some of you will look upon this, disagree, then move on your merry way. Others will take some of this as offensive, or just not be able to handle it, and we will go our separate ways. My hope, as always, is to cease the language of radicalism, which is pervasive in the media, whether it be social media or the news, in order to bring us together for beneficial discourse.

Where Do I Stand?

I think it's important that I do not cast any illusions in how I feel about gun control. This is important  because, in the end, my attempted objectivity on this subject will obviously be judged. Some of you will dismiss me right off the bat, and I ask you to continue reading, if nothing else, to get to know me better.

I believe, wholeheartedly, in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I believe that our right to bear arms is needed to counter-act a government that has possession of a military force. There are those who state that the number of individuals currently incarcerated in this country is proof that the second amendment doesn't protect us from the government taking our freedoms. I would respond that the second amendment hasn't been really tested, in 200 some odd years. Civil disobedience only goes so far, eventually, you have to arm yourself, either with a sympathetic army, or your own arsenal. I not only believe that you should have the right to own a weapon, but you have a right to own whatever weapon the nation's military has in its possession.

Now before every pro gun pundit starts the standing ovation, there is a huge “BUT” in this. Whereas I believe you have the right to own whatever weapon you please, I also believe you should be required to pass a few background checks. You see, I also believe in gun control. So in my imaginary world, you should legally be able to buy a military grade, fully automatic AR-15, after you have been licensed to carry one. Licensing would be required to be renewed once a year. It would involve, mental competency evaluation, a review and inspection of the weapon(s) that you own, weapon owner's competency testing, an inspection of the weapon’s security. a review of your court records, a review of those living in your home and those in contact with you, the reaffirmation of the existence of a locator chip in the weapon, ballistics testing, and drug testing all at your cost.

None of this is tongue in cheek. I'm serious. If you want a fully loaded Abrams Tank, or a patriot missile array, then I think you should be able to own it. I however don't believe that everyone deserves the unrestricted ownership of such. Since most armed crimes are committed with a registered firearm, I believe you should be held liable if your weapon is stolen and used in crime.

My example, may be a bit extreme, but I believe that the same should go if you own a Glock 9mm or a Remington model 700 hunting rifle. I know the argument is that this just makes it harder for responsible, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals, but considering that a good deal of weapons used in crimes are either stolen from those who purchased them legally or used by the legal owners themselves, it's hard to justify not making  more controls on legally owned firearms` in the aspects of purchase and security once purchased.

The other side is yes, it is easier for someone breaking the law to get their hands on anything, than it is for a law abiding citizen. I do not know, personally, anyone who wants to own a firearm, and is allowed by law to own one, but doesn't because the regulations are to much of a hassle. I'm sure they are out there. Despite how I feel about what weapons you should have the right to own, I don't think that the usage of such a freedom, frees you from suspicion drawn due to your purchases. After all, from its invention, the personal firearm was designed to kill, and do it more effectively and efficiently than other hand held weapons available upon its inception. It is not designed for any other purpose. There are those that buy them without such intention, but their initial purpose cannot be ignored. I think a person who wishes to own these, in any quantity, should expect to draw suspicion. To expect anything else is naive.

On top of all of this, I do not own, nor do I wish to own a firearm. I personally don't think I should be allowed to own firearms, due to my temper among other things. I have been trained to use them in the military. I've gone target shooting with friends. I'd even encourage everyone to fire a variety of firearms, of some sort, at least once in their lives to gain knowledge on the issue. I just don't want to have any.

So to sum it up, I am extremely pro second amendment, to the point of allowing you to own any weapon the military has in its arsenal, with a massive amount of regulation and registration, but I don't own a fire arm, even though I am a thoroughly experienced user. That puts me near the middle I think.

With that being said, let's carry on.

You Look Like a Fucking Idiot.

No, I am not talking about boys in skinny jeans, or boys in baggy jeans with their drawers hanging out. I'm talking about you characters on both sides of the issue making stupid arguments. Basically it comes to two very specific points. On the anti gun side is the “there is no reason for you to own (enter 30 plus round magazine, assault rifle or whatever, here) and on the pro gun side there is the “More people died in car accidents or whatever and we don't ban...”

Stop it. You both sound ridiculous. In the first place, depending on who you talk to, there is no practical reason, for the following: Art, music, store bought food, guitar amplifiers over 60 watts in a two bedroom apartment, cars that go 210 miles per hour, Justin Beiber, suspenders, women's professional basketball, religion, mathematics, critical thinking, commas... I could go on, but you get the idea. It is one of the weakest arguments against anything. You are just asking for someone to rebel against you when you say that. It insights its own argument, and usually it's the people who articulate this argument who are into things which most people consider inconsequential.

On the other side, using automobile deaths, or deaths by some other human guided object, in order to dispute the need for firearm regulation to those in support of such measures, is, in a word, stupid. The usual comparisons involve cars, airplanes, and knives. All of these have multiple purposes and chances are if you killed someone with one of these (outside of military application) you were using them outside their intended purpose. For instance, an automobile, in civilian circles, is intended to be used for the transport of people and/or goods. A colt AR-15 (the AR stands for Assault rifle) is intended to be used to kill people. When a car used irresponsibly to kill someone, you are using it incorrectly. When you use a colt AR-15 irresponsibly to kill someone, you are using it just as correctly as you were when you use it to not kill someone.... Wait a minute.. It is designed to kill people, so using it as a doorstop, a parking brake, or for quiddich, is using it outside its intended purpose. It is, after all, called an assault rifle, not a cooking rifle, a tennis rifle, a flying rifle, or a hammer. Assault means to attack, so no, it is not designed for self defense. It is designed to assault. Even when it's abused you are using it correctly. So if you are wondering why your clever analogy to demonstrate individual motive over the actions of an an inanimate object is falling on deaf ears... that is why.

Both of these arguments are designed to sing to the choir. They aren't going to convert anyone to the opposing side, nor will they convince anyone they are wrong in their beliefs. This is actually one of the growing problems in this country. We don't argue so much to convince people they are wrong, but to become more self assured. And so, the divide continues.

50% of all Statistics Lie
or

Statistics Don't Lie, But They Are Used Out of Context.

If there is one thing politics has taught me, it is that statistics are abused above anything else, including firearms, automobiles, and twitter. Here is a basic fact. If I'm trying to convince you that something is out of control, I will have more success comparing it to itself as a percentage of growth over time, than give you the odds over all. For instance, if I told you that traffic accidents rose 46% between 2001 and 2002, you might be aghast. If I then told you only 1% of automobiles were involved in those traffic accidents in 2002, you would calm down.

Here is the deal and I won't do it for you. Take the number of school shootings since the assault weapon ban. Now take the number of those, including universities, public schools, and private schools. Use all the math you learned in those schools to come up with the percentage of schools that have suffered such tragedies. The resulting percentage is less than 1%. Meaning that less than 1% of all learning institutions experienced a shooting within their walls. Now you can use this statistic how you wish. Maybe you want to illustrate that we do not need gun control due to the insignificant chance my children and yours will be shot on school grounds. Maybe you want to show how ridiculous it would be to arm teachers. Who knows, but the fact remains, when someone tells you something has risen 300% or whatever, you can sit right smack dab in the middle of it and tell them the facts. There are more lottery winners than school shooting victims.

What I will tell you is of more significance. In 2011, 30,940 US civilians, died of firearms injury, either criminal, accidental, or suicide, which was actually down from 2010. Once again, with the point of being unbiased I will tell you that the population of the United States 2011 was projected at about 312 million. It is roughly estimated that there were 270 million firearms in the US. So with that said, 0.00009% of U.S. Americans died from gunshot wounds in 2011. To add to that 0.0001% of firearms in the US, killed a person. Now with this perspective you can either advocate the relative safety of legal firearms sales, or stipulate that gun control wouldn't cause a lack of safety. This statistic, of course, doesn't tell the story in certain demographics, or areas of the country. It is general across the country, which brings up the thought that fire arms regulation should be on a geographical basis. But of course, that is all lost in the media hubbub.

Now there may be some of you that are trying to show the growth of gun violence over a period of time. Keep in mind that there approximately 4 million births in the US accompanied with an ever shrinking 2 million deaths a year. So you can say gun deaths grow by so much a year... but then you have to think that the amount of adult US citizens grows by about 2 million a year, therefore gun ownership grows, and so on. Just be responsible.

So What's the Big Deal?

Or

Mastering the Fear of The Masses.

We are victims of fear. The retail industry uses it to stimulate profits. The media uses it to stimulate ratings. The politicians use it to stimulate support.
 

I have always believed that the greatest enemy to liberty and freedom is the fear of the constituency. It is irrigated, grown and cultivated to be used, by the powers that be (either commercial or political), to grow their strength and influence. Your fear of damnation, strengthens the power of religion. Your fear of ignorance of some terror or another, strengthens the power of the media. Your resultant fear of that terror, strengthens the politicians' agendas.

This fear allows for you to be exploited. Think of what is left in the grocery store every time there is a snow storm predicted. Think of how the fear of death or being obese has lead to this or that dietary trend. As for the weapons industry, the fears of regulation and assault have resulted in record profits. The more scared you are, the more likely you are to combat that fear with something commercial.

The media, of course, aides in this. You are no longer interested in being merely informed. You need to be scared into watching the news. Thus their programming is geared into making you afraid or angry of this or that thing, no matter how inconsequential. Think of how many people you know who have died? Now for a great many of us, we've known people who have died of cancer or natural causes. Chances are many of us have known few who have died of anything. We don't know of anyone who has killed themselves due to cyberbullying, dodge ball, or firearms. I myself will state I'm the exception to the rule, knowing plenty who have died of firearms, cancer and suicide. Yet we live in fear of these things. We live in fear of something that only effects a 10,000^th of a percentage.

The truth is death is a loud beast. It can be exploited to the point of putting the living into a riotous fervor. Think of where we were in 2000. Air travel, though a bit of a pain in the ass, was relatively simple. Now four flights out of thousands get hijacked, and we cannot bring nail clippers on our carry on baggage? We have one guy get caught with a bomb in his shoe and now we have to take our shoes off for a domestic flight. Now it costs almost 100% more to take a flight. Why? Because you demanded it out of fear, even though what security measures were in place resulted in a casualty rate less than that of your daily commute to work.

The media, whether it be Fox News, CNN, or NBC, have managed to put you in a state of believing that you are in constant danger from an alien force, government or criminal intent. Let's be frank. I'm not advocating we live in utopia, but you have shown yourselves, and not the terrorists, politicians, and criminals as the enemies to liberty. I direct this to both sides of the debate. This does not means we shouldn't have safeguards, but you will never, ever, be the master of your own death.

If Sandy Hook has taught us anything, it is this...

1. Fear is the master of the democratic mob.

2. Nancy Lanza was an avid gun owner and her exercise of the Second amendment did nothing to save her.

3. Despite being in fear of the fascist police state that would result from Obama Care, and the reelection of Barack Obama, conservatives have no problem turning schools that already have secure entry and 24 hour surveillance into microcosms of fascism, by adding armed guards. 

4. You are all tools of fear.

The debate over this matter has resulted in two sides telling each other this basic statement: If it wasn't for the fact that (you have/don't have) guns, then these things (would/wouldn't) happen. Mix them up, either or, it doesn't matter. In essence we are trying to manipulate the other's behavior, and the one thing that should be prevalent in American Society, is telling someone that they have to do something someone else's way, results in a backlash from those who believe otherwise. This is a divisive issue. It is designed and spoken in a way to divide. There is no middle ground. Right or wrong, both arguments will fall on deaf ears due to their casting of blame on the other. Democracy ends the moment our national discussion on compromise ends. This discussion is a sample in why the individual citizen, does not even believe that there should be a democracy.