Can’t we just talk about gun legislation?
Last week, a United Airlines flight attendant forced a passenger with a small dog to put the dog in an overhead storage bin during a flight, even though there were no vents for the dog to breathe. The dog did not survive the flight, and in less than a week, legislation was introduced into Congress to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. The bill is called the WOOFF Act — the Welfare Of Our Furry Friends.
When a defenseless puppy dies on an airplane, Congress is almost instantly roused to action. Why then, are our legislators so reluctant to provide the same level of care and concern for our children, when we have already lost so many to gun violence? How many mass shootings will it take before we see some meaningful legislation that could begin to turn the tide and make our schools, theaters, malls, and other public places safer?
Rather than allowing the National Rifle Association and its proponents to shut down any discussion of possible solutions, we need a real conversation in America about what meaningful legislation would look like, and we need a critical assessment of some of their key talking points, as follows:
Talking Point 1: Gun laws will only hurt law-abiding gun owners since criminals will not abide by them.
If you follow the logic in this argument, it would be pointless to have any laws at all since some people will not abide by them. Since some people will rob, should robbery be made legal? How about speeding? We do not pass laws based on whether some people are going to break them anyway. That is absurd. The question is whether the laws make sense and might make a difference. In what ways are law-abiding gun owners “hurt” by sensible gun legislation?
Talking Point 2: People who are in favor of gun control want to take all of our guns.
Related Items
Trump is not a president for all
Trump quote taken out of context
Smoky Mountain News brings home numerous NCPA awards
Election fraud claims are just that — a fraud
This may be the crown jewel in NRA propaganda, because it gins up the fear, anger, and paranoia of its constituency. The vast majority of people I know who support some form of gun control do not want to take away everyone’s guns. This is one area where the most progress could be made, if only we could get past the paranoia and propaganda and discuss it rationally.
We already have some types of gun control in place, so it is really just a question of where to draw the line in the types of guns that citizens need. Does anyone need more than a double barrel twelve-gauge shotgun for self-defense? I haven’t seen any proposals to eliminate those. Does anyone really need an assault rifle to hunt deer, rabbits, or quail? Aren’t there literally hundreds of guns to choose from for target shooting?
Why does anyone need any type of gun capable of firing a hundred rounds in less than two minutes? Why does anyone need an assault rifle, or any military grade weapon? What are they good for, other than for gun fetishists to get their jollies owning or shooting them? They exist for only one other practical reason — to kill the maximum number of people when someone decides to take that dark path.
Talking Point 3: We need our guns in case we have to go to war with the government.
Now here is a curious bit of right-wing theater. A ragged band of “freedom fighters” wearing “Molon Labe” T-shirts battling Apache helicopters, army tanks, and drone strikes with their AR-15 rifles. You couldn’t get Bruce Willis or Nicolas Cage to read that script, much less be in the movie.
Talking Point 4: The Second Amendment guarantees me the right to have any gun I want.
If we are going to insist on a “purist” interpretation of the Second Amendment, then just give every household a musket rifle and call it a day. Our civil liberties all come with some common sense restrictions, some of which have evolved over many decades of debate, deliberation, and social change. The Constitution is an elastic document subject to the interpretation of the courts, and even the most cursory review of history demonstrates that interpretations have varied wildly. A great many people once felt that denying blacks freedom and women the right to vote was constitutionally sound. Not many people feel that way now.
One of these days, our children’s children will look back on this age and find the courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment foolish and bewildering.
Talking Point 5: It makes sense to arm teachers since the only way to combat a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.
I’ve been a teacher for 30 years and was a student for another 18 years prior to that. Among the dozens and dozens of teachers I have known, I can’t think of a single one who would either want to be armed in class, or one who I would want to see armed.
The very idea of Tombstone-style shootouts in the classroom is so ridiculous that it is hard to believe that grown-ups have actually been talking about this for the past few weeks. But here we are.
Talking Point 6: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Guns are just a tool.
Right, people do kill people. And they almost always do it with guns. The narrative that always follows is that some people are just evil, while others are mentally ill. I agree, so doesn’t it make sense that we do everything we can to limit the scope of the tragedy as much as possible when they act out? Does it really make sense to make semi-automatic weapons so readily available? Don’t some guns kill a lot more people than other guns?
Let’s put the talking points aside for a moment. Instead, imagine a scenario in which we could somehow remove the politics and the propaganda from the discussion. Imagine a group of people sitting down and trying to balance the interests of self-defense and responsible gun ownership with the interests of the safety of their communities. If we could start over, what choices would make sense? In that scenario, can you imagine someone making a rational argument for a weapon that can fire a hundred rounds in less than two minutes? Do we need that in our community? What else do we need, or not need? What limits make sense?
If we can pass legislation to protect puppies on airplanes, can we at least have a real conversation about protecting children in schools and making our communities safer places to live?
(Chris Cox is a writer and teacher. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..)
