Gun control(?)

The shrill noise about guns in the US is probably beyond annoying and I'm sure you're tired of it. I know I am.  This post is a mess of arguments that I've been mulling as the 'debate' about gun control swirls in my little pea brain. If you're not into it just ignore and come back in a couple days for something else.

----------------------

New gun control legislation in the United States will not be effective in any meaningful way. You might as well pass a law telling people not to get fat: It's too easy to eat junk food and be lazy. (Obesity, for the record, is a far greater health danger than firearms.)

Am I against stricter gun laws? Not necessarily.

I start with this article from Malcolm Gladwell:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact?currentPage=all
Gun control will be all the rage for a while, but the problem is so difficult that it may be intractable, at least in our lifetime.

Reports indicate that the shooter in Conn used an AR-15 rifle, likely with a 20 or 30 round magazine. The gun he used is legal in, I think, 47 states. You can ban the high-capacity magazines but that's just sticking your finger in the dike. Here in CA we are limited to 10 rounds per magazine for all guns, unless your magazine existed before the ban. So there are pre-ban mags out there. Of course you can still buy the high-cap mags in Oregon, Nevada or Arizona if you drive there. The AR-15 in it's most common iteration is also banned in Califoria under a complex set of laws that ends up having little effect on actual ownership.

I found this from the New York Times article very intersting: "And they cite statistics indicating that unlike handguns or shotguns, rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report."

To reiterate: 2.6% of the murders listed by the FBI last year were committed with any type of rifle.

Furthermore, if (when?) the weapons ban goes into effect again these rifles will still be in wide circulation. There are tens of millions of citizens that safely own and operate these firearms. Why should they be made to turn in their guns? (They won't anyway; don't even ask.)

I have yet to hear a description of plausible legislation that will prevent what happened on December 14th. It's not that I am against stricter gun laws, it's that I don't think the laws will work, and I don't think they tackle the core issue of responsible gun ownership (see Gladwell article). I think it should be more difficult to buy a gun, but I also think that if you can prove that you are a responsible citizen then you should be able to own any gun you can afford to buy. 

The analogy to automobiles is useful because it's a deadly device that almost everyone here in the US uses and is familiar with. Consider that we have around 33,000 automobile related deaths every year in the United States. THIRTY THREE FUCKING THOUSAND (and that's down from ~42,000ish per year from 1995-2007). No one is making it tougher to get a driver's license, or calling for a ban on cars. Also consider that the graying of the baby boomers is going to make that number increase. Where is the great hue and cry? Where is the outrage? There isn't any, because people are stupid and lazy.

So is the issue guns, or is it stupidity and laziness? A gun ban isn't going to change anything; a concerted effort to stop being so goddamn stupid and lazy might have some positive effect.

Addressing issues like mental illness takes effort. Being vigilant takes effort.* Being responsible and accountable takes effort. Bring back the 'assault weapon'** ban if it makes you feel better, but until our society commits to doing the difficult work of addressing mental illness, remaining vigilant and staying accountable we will be right back here again, gun laws or no.

As for the video [below], Yeager is roughly the polar opposite of myself in much of his worldview, but I am hard pressed to argue against his call to action. He couches it in sexist, macho language, but his core argument is valid: You must act.



* If you have access to a deadly device it is your responsibility to keep it away from those that would misuse it, especially if they live with you. You don't leave your fucking car keys lying around if your teenager might steal your car. Same with guns, only x infninity. 

** Can't even begin to describe how much I hate those meaningless words. Ugh.