I am almost addicted to the current so-called debate about gun control, especially when it comes to social media. It seems there is no such thing as honest discussion. A perfect example arose after the student walkout on March 14, 2018. A friend of mine posted a comment on Facebook and it drew my attention. I soon got involved in a discussion with someone who was highly supportive of the walkout. The conversation quickly changed from the walkout to the gun control debate.
In the course of the discussion, I stated my belief that society is what is failing these kids and that they, in turn, have become part of the problem. She immediately stated that I was blaming the victims. I then posted the following comment:
“The shooter is solely responsible. However, I do believe that there is quite a bit of proximate cause to go around. Be it society, parents, school, law enforcement, or even some students, it is likely that there were a lot of actions that led up to this. Unless this kid is a psychopath and born without the ability to feel empathy, societal influences led to this outcome. If we want to actually fix the problem, then we must be willing and able to identify those friction points and figure out a way to mitigate them. If you want to take the stance that bullying (in any of its forms) is not a factor, then I take the stance that you are not serious about actually addressing the real issue at hand and simply want to bloviate. Again, guns are simply a symptom of the virus. If you cut them out the virus will mutate into something else. People serious about the discussion of school shootings recognize this.”
Her response was as follows:
“I see that you stoop as low as our President when you call me names. Wow. You won’t change my mind and I won’t change yours. So guess what? Spread more love, not hate. I am very well informed and I am a very smart individual.”
What names did I call her? Maybe someone else can explain this to me because I am simply at a loss. Here is where the discussion breaks down. When people are confronted with an opinion that they disagree with, they tend to simply attack.
Sadly, I see it on the other side as well. What predicated this article was another post I read. It was an article which stated that calling the monsters who commit these shootings mentally disturbed was, in fact, lumping everyone with a mental problem into one crazy group. They then stated that because almost everyone in the world at one time or another falls into the spectrum of suffering from some sort of mental disorder, the only solution is gun control. To me, this is a very simple argument to debunk.
First, simply falling into the category of depression, anxiety, or even OCD is far from being what most people would call crazy. Second, as long as you are not a danger to yourself or others, and you’re not suffering from some form of psychopathic personality disorder, no one is going to attempt to dehumanize you. The problem is that this argument comes down to the lack of resiliency in our culture. Anytime I talk to anyone at the VA, they ask me the same question: “Do you ever feel depressed?” My response is always the same, “Only when I am sad.” These emotions are normal and are in no way akin to those individuals who decide to kill others.
Even if someone does suffer from a more severe mental health problem, no one will automatically assume them to be a serial killer. In order to make such an assumptive jump, it would require some very serious statistical evidence, which clearly does not exist. In short, the argument the author is making is nonsensical. Yet instead of a thoughtful answer, the majority of those who responded came up with such intelligent statements as: “You can have my guns when you take them out of my cold dead hands!”
None of these responses make any sense whatsoever. Of course, the problem is that this argument is heavily saturated with emotion. On one side, you have those who view guns as the problem—only disarming the populace will suffice. On the other side are those who view the Second Amendment as absolute.
As for me, I would like to see thoughtful analysis on this subject. For example, I recently did an online search for “commonsense gun control.” Many of the examples I found were either thinly veiled attempts to take away our rights, or ideas that serve no actual purpose. For example, one that keeps coming up is the ban on high capacity magazines. The problem is that it takes virtually no time at all to change out a magazine in a weapon. Maybe two seconds, if you are slow. How exactly is that going to solve a problem? Another one is the ban on assault rifles. To clarify a misconception, AR stands for ArmaLite (gun manufacturer) and not “assault rifle.” The term assault rifle is ridiculously broad. In fact, one could argue that any weapon used in a crime is an assault weapon. Additionally, the suggestions that I have seen on banning these platforms are ridiculously broad and essentially ban semiautomatic weapons.
There was one suggestion in an article from The Washington Post that I could actually support, titled “Three Common-Sense Gun Policies That Would Save Lives.” What the article suggested was a nationwide permit to purchase requirement. This would be a nationwide background check that people would need to pass before being allowed to purchase a gun of any sort. Of course, that shouldn’t be a surprise, since it is essentially what we are supposed to have already. My assumption, however, would be that this would mandate that states report, which is the biggest problem currently facing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIS).
In the context of the Washington Post article, I envision a system where you would need to be registered to be able to purchase a weapon and it would not actually track your purchases. To me, that would make sense. In fact, I believe that this would be an instant success if it were combined with a national reciprocity law. After all, if this would check someone to ensure they could legally purchase, why shouldn’t they be allowed to carry it? This is an example of a serious discussion about gun control in America.
Yet even with this WaPo article, it quickly gave away its anti-gun bias. It suggests those with violent misdemeanors, such as getting into a schoolyard fight in high school, should be banned from owning guns and that people should be able to sue gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals. Both of these suggestions are aimed at banning guns from those who should legally be allowed to own them. In fact, allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers would, in a very short manner, lead to the complete shutdown of civilian gun sales in the United States—something that proponents are well aware of. In short, it was a piece trying to get an end run around the Second Amendment.
The anonymity of social media, compounded with the violent rhetoric of fringe groups, has changed the way we communicate differences of opinions. Instead of listening and countering, we come up with anger and talking points. This type of dialogue is simply driving us further apart. Disagreement is fine, but only after both sides have been able to voice their ideas. It is time that we return to a more civil era of conduct.
