Our Conversations on Guns is the Problem, Part 2

Even though the debate on guns has quieted down a bit, I think it has lasted longer than anticipated and seems to be same conclusion others are making. This post, though, is more philosophical and theoretical than data-based ( I do include some), so these are my own thoughts rather than citing data (please see my first article if you would like the data). I acknowledge that this can be more easily refuted and debated, which I am fine with as these are my own thoughts on the matter. I also am not an expert on constitutional law, so my arguments you will read on the constitution are restricted by what I know (or believe I know). Take what I say with a grain of salt as I believe you should do with anything you read.

That said, I have some thoughts on guns…

One popular meme I have seen going around states that the second amendment needs to be updated because the founding fathers had no idea how firearms would develop and how powerful they would become. They only had flintlock muskets, not AR-15’s.

This goes into the argument that the constitution needs to be an organic document that is consistently updated to meet the needs of the times. A commonly cited example is the 18th amendment banning alcohol, and the subsequent 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment. This creates the idea that the constitution can add new amendments, and if it doesn’t work it can be repealed.

One counter-argument I would like to make (and I am not the first to use it) is the fact the founding fathers couldn’t account for computers and the internet. So we can regulate computers and the internet, but not quill-pens and the printing press, right? That’s what I hear when I am

confronted with that argument of repealing the second amendment. Computers and the internet are the cause of cyber-bullying. We wouldn’t have cyber-bullying if not for the advent of the computer and the internet, which has arguably contributed to a rise in suicide. Should we ban computers?

A second counter-argument is if you want to make the constitution organic and more reflective of the times, it falls prey into becoming a reactive rather than a proactive document. The idea of the constitution was to be a proactive (or revolutionary) document because it stated what the government could do, not what it couldn’t do. This means everything else not stated in the constitution doesn’t automatically mean the government has jurisdiction over it, but rather we as Americans have the freedom to pursue it. The Founding Fathers had absolutely no clue that the internet would eventually become the single-biggest thing to happen in thousands of years, but I argue our laws allowed it to expand organically from the populace because the government couldn’t control the internet once the people got ahold of it (China and North Korea are good examples of what happens when governments control the internet). I argue that this is what made America truly innovative and fostered a creative culture in us to become the dominant power in scientific research, literature, and culture.

The 18th amendment is a classic example a reactive constitution where a majority of the country probably did not want to ban alcohol, but a vocal minority caught the ear of the government to implement the amendment (this is debated). Consequently, drinking became underground, organized crime drastically grew, and rum-runners became popular along the borders of Canada and Mexico. You can see the same situation happening with marijuana which has taken decades to begin to unwind, and is still classed on the same level as meth and heroin on the federal level. The states have had to take the initiative to legalize marijuana.

I am afraid that a constitutional amendment to severely reform or repeal the second amendment would fall into a similar situation. Let’s take a look at what may happen if the second amendment is repealed and firearms are confiscated.

Firstly, I honestly believe an armed rebellion would occur, though how popular it would become is up for debate. The gun culture in the United States is one, if not the, strongest in the world. Self-proclaimed militias have sprung-up in almost every state advocating for armed rebellion if the government becomes too totalitarian. I don’t think changing health-care would trigger them, but taking away their guns sure will. This is a nice transition into one other myth I would like to bust: that an armed rebellion would never work because the US military is too powerful. The rebellion would immediately be crushed.

Please reference back to our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, as well as other wars In Chechnya, Colombia, Afghanistan for the Soviet Union and Great Britain…you know, basically any history book. Guerrilla armies exist because they work. The questions is whether a guerrilla campaign would work in the US. In all seriousness, I believe no, but it would still exist in some form or another. While insurgents would not have popular support, they would still receive some sympathy from citizens in conservative-dominated states, and even some state and national officials that wouldn’t out-right support them but may drag their feet in apprehending or prosecuting those captured.

Okay, this argument is getting into the weeds too much, even for my own taste. It seems morbid to be thinking of this, but I have seen people advocate for banning the second amendment. When they do, I don’t think they realize the consequences of it if it should ever succeed. This level of hypothetical was never reached in countries like the UK or Australia as there was no fear of a rebellion from the populace.

What are we do to then?

As I stated in my previous article, I believe the conversation surrounding guns is crowded by two extreme arguments of either supporting a total gun ban and repealing the second amendment, and the other side not willing to give an inch in fear of giving a mile. I believe a majority of Americans support some kind of gun reform, but not to the extremes.

The data I am going to include are from fivethirtyeight and Pew Research. These are public opinion polls, and the one from fivethirtyeight is a great way to test your knowledge on how Americans feel about guns. I recommend you try their quiz before reading on.

What really strikes me from the fivethrityeight article is the graph showing what percentage of Americans support outlawing all guns. This surprised me about how low it was (5% for Republicans, 15% for Democrats, and 10% on average). What also surprised me was the similarity between Republicans and Democrats that support blocking guns sales to those with mental illness, support extensive background checks, and support raising the minimum purchase age to 21 . In these cases, a majority of both republicans and democrats support these measures and this is where we can find common ground. After this, the difference becomes stark.

I support background checks. This makes good sense to me and does not harm me and other law-abiding gun owners in any way (how this is defined is what becomes the problem when the government falsely puts innocent people on a no-fly list or other government list, thus preventing them from owning a weapon. This needs serious reform). I don’t mind extending the waiting periods and increasing the scrutiny within reason, but the reason a lot of background checks do not work is because there are limited resources and data going to those that conduct the background check, and current laws are haphazardly enforced. More resources need to be put into this if background checks are to be more effective.

I also support limiting gun purchases if the person has a history of mental illness within reason. I say within reason because we have no line drawn as to what constitutes a serious-enough mental illness to prevent that person from buying or owning a firearm. Who determines this also draws ire from myself and other gun owners, especially if a singular doctor is the only determinant on whether you can own a firearm. You will have cases where a doctor who does not support people owning firearms stating their patient cannot own a firearm because of mental illness that in reality is probably ADHD or another minor case. I say this with some certainty because we can cite judges within the judicial system. Judges and the legal system have significant power over the fate of a criminal, and many cases of criminals being given harsh sentences for minor or unworthy crimes are sadly rife. This same case can easily happen when doctors and guns come together, which is why some system of appeals needs to be implemented and/or have several signatories to mental fitness.

Another policy I have not seen talked about much is requiring a potential gun-buyer to go through a safety course. I believe this would go far not just in reducing homicides, but also suicides and accidental gun deaths. Most ranges require that members go through some kind of gun safety course, or require you to watch a safety video before going onto the range. I believe this can be easily expanded to be required for buying a gun. This also gives instructors the ability to assess student behavior to see if they are actually fit for owning a gun. This idea is already implemented by gun sellers because they reserve the right to refuse the sale of a gun if they suspect the person may be dangerous or would use it for ill. The policy could require a gun owner to go through it once, and it would have a period of time the safety certificate is valid (maybe ten years? Just throwing a number here). Gun safety certificates could then have reciprocity between gun ranges where range owners know their clientele are trained in some way (they could still require a gun safety video) and states much in the same way concealed-carry permits are. I also don’t see this as a major contention on the part of gun owners as many of us already take classes anyway. You are already required to take a class and pass a test to have a concealed-carry permit (depending on the state). This is also where the NRA performs the best because they operate some of the largest and most popular gun safety courses in the country. Curriculum could include how to handle a firearm safely, how to safely store firearms in your home or car, and training in certain situations where you might require using your firearm (home defense, hunting, etc).

Most gun owners jump at the chance of doing these (I would, this would be fun! Oh darn, I need to go to the range and shoot guns, ugh ;) ). Interestingly enough, Switzerland encourages people to regularly train with their weapons at ranges across the country. Homicides also are quite low at 0.5 per 100, of which gun homicides only constitute 20.3% of cases (wikipedia is citing the annual crime report of Switzerland which is only published in German, French, and Italian. As such, I am assuming it is correct as I cannot read these languages).

Will these solutions work in the US? I honestly do not know because we would need to implement them to see the results. We can look at other countries, but this also needs to be taken with a grain of salt (this also goes for my earlier Switzerland comparison). These solutions also do not completely solve the issue of gang-related violence and suicide which is a significant part of gun violence. These issues require more nuanced approaches which the current conversation does not allow debate for (see my first article for more on this).

The reason I wrote these articles is mostly for my own benefit of writing my beliefs for myself to see and self-critique. I also hope this can get a conversation going on how we approach guns and bridge a gap between liberals and conservatives. I honestly do no think what I hope will actually happen, but one can still hope.