Gun Control (EP.05)

In Guns, Podcast, Responsibility by Will Luden4 Comments

In typical Results With Reason style, we’ll start with a hoped-for common goal: Barring the sale of firearms to (and confiscating from) those who have shown tendencies, red flags, that might indicate they would abuse guns, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to enjoy the safe use of well-defined firearms.

We are not starting from scratch; we have thousands–tens of thousands–of gun control laws on the book. Step one is to better enforce the laws we have now. More attention to individuals waving red flags needs to be supplemented with better intra-governmental agency cooperation and far better use of government technology. We know from experience that many DMVs do not enforce the legal requirement that drivers carry liability insurance, which is why most of us must carry uninsured motorist insurance. It is easy to show proof of insurance when initially needed, then cancel it. The computers with that information are not used to follow-up. Similarly, most of those who are in the US illegally simply have overstayed their visas. And unlike those those who tiptoed across the border, visa applicants are in the government’s computers.

Let’s start our discussion by addressing the gun ban and confiscation that some are calling for (and others want but are not yet ready to speak up honestly). Calling for “gun free zones” is an example of the latter. Having gun free zones in a country with as many guns as people is exactly like having no-peeing zones in a public swimming pool. The folks running those pools know that is impossible, so they don’t allow urinating at all. With the exception of the truly naive, people calling for gun free zones in the US know they must fail, and eventually will have the opportunity to demand the total gun ban they wanted all along.

Other folks, equally wrong both strategically and tactically, want to toss out all of the nation’s illegal immigrants (like gun confiscation), with no more allowed in (like a gun ban). Those who hope to ban and confiscate guns are as wrong morally, strategically and tactically as those who want to ban immigration and toss out all illegals.

Now, let’s look at what we learned–if anything–from Prohibition–the alcohol ban. In 1920, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. Those in favor of the ban called alcohol, “America’s National Curse.” (Sound familiar?) The results was that people still drank, but instead of buying alcohol at local restaurants and shops, they bought it from gangsters. Like Al Capone and his thugs. Businesses suffered and collapsed; crime soared. And people still drank. Recognizing that the cure was far worse than the disease, the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition; the only time in our history that an Amendment has been repealed. Let’s learn from history, not repeat it.

Let’s remember, as we talked about in an earlier podcast, gun control, like immediately stronger school safety (the best way of stopping the next shooter), are both, correctly and necessarily, dealing with the symptoms of what we are facing, not the underlying cause. We will deal with that cause together in an upcoming podcast. For now, dealing with the symptoms is designed to keep the patient comfortable, and, in this case, alive until we can identify and deal with the root causes.

Some specifics: “Ban AR-15s.” OK, let’s look at that. BTW, AR does not stand for automatic rifle; it stands for Armalite, the original manufacturer. It is a small caliber, high-velocity, semi-automatic rifle. It is the semi-automatic version of the military M-16 which is capable of fully automatic fire. The “fully automatic” part is what makes the M-16 a military weapon.

Pause for a definition of semi-automatic: “able to fire repeatedly through an automatic reloading process but requiring release and another pressure of the trigger for each successive shot.” Merriam-Webster.

If we are looking at banning the AR because it is a semi-automatic rifle, then let’s look at banning the 9mm Glock 19, likely the most popular higher-caliber handgun in the US. Powerful and lethal, it is carried by our military, and endorsed by many law enforcement agencies and officers. The most popular magazine (ammo holder) for this Glock holds 13 rounds. It would be cheaper and easier to buy and conceal two Glock 19s and multiple easy-to-change magazines than to buy and conceal an AR. And in close quarter shootings like the school in Parkland, it is every bit as effective–if not more so–as the nastier looking AR. I suspect that many who are looking at banning the AR will be after semi-auto pistols next. The key point I want to make here is to be honest about what we want in the end. If you want a gun ban/confiscation, stand up and say so. And tell us how to go about that successfully. If you want a ban on all semi-auto firearms, well, same thing. Be honest. Have a plan. Passion and emotions without honesty and a plan is destructive frenzy.

Oh, yes, Q. “Who needs an AR in the first place?” A. Very few. But that is intentionally the wrong question. Let’s try these need-based questions to illustrate this point: “Who needs a 300-hp car?” “What family of 3 needs a 2,500 sq. ft. home?” “Who needs a vacation home?” “Who needs to go to the movies?” Our society cannot–must not–allow or disallow products or actions based on perceived need. The test should be what things, products and activities, people can handle safely and responsibly. And remember Prohibition. Restricting a whole society to stop the damage done by a few is wrong and destructive.

Will Luden, writing from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

Will Luden
Follow Me

Will Luden

As an author, speaker, public company board chair, family man, a man with many friends (and friends-to-be), citizen and a child of God, I am driven to contribute. One way to for me to contribute is to start thought-provoking discussions.My overall objective is to stimulate “Passionate, Relentless, Reasoning.” My specific goals include getting people to act (only) after Reasoning.
Will Luden
Follow Me

Latest posts by Will Luden (see all)

Comments

  1. We must use the laws we already have to keep the people safe by enforcing the laws. The reasoning is concrete. The enforcement must be tricky or our systems have holes that need to be sealed. How can we make these actions happen?

    1. Author

      Marsha, great question; thanks. The “holes” that need to be sealed are in three areas; 1. Bureaucratic responsibility. Until employees face significant negative consequences for sloppy work, including gun-sale, data base-related errors and the other type of gaps that have recently been exposed, nothing will change there. In many other governmental areas, including the IRS, nothing happens to anyone, despite how clear the errors or wrongdoing. 2. The people who want to ban and confiscate all guns. They do not want anything short of that to work. 3. The people who yell “slippery slope” meaning that if you ban, say, dangerous bump stocks, the slippery slope crowd holds that soon enough they will be coming for your hunting rifle. Cheers, Will

  2. Isn’t the answer “responsible gun ownership”? I think even the NRA uses that line, yet they pee their pants when someone suggests closing the loopholes on background checks and having effective ways to keep firearms out of the hands of the deranged and morally deficient. Why does my hypocrisy overload warning light keep going off?

    1. Author

      Charlie, I can’t respond to why warning lights go off in another person. I do believe that the overwhelming majority of us are capable of responsible gun control. As we are capable of responsible alcohol use. And prohibiting either is not at all the answer to abuses in either situation. One on hand, I see the NRA at the head of the parade when it comes to gun safety. All of the many firearm training classes I have taken, some more than once, have been led either by NRA-trained instructors (vast majority) or former Green Berets (a few)–sometimes both. And I see training and re-training as part of responsible gun ownership for those of us who keep them locked and loaded and nearby. Among other things, I fault the NRA for their “slippery slope” argument; if you allow things like bump stocks to be banned, it will only be a matter of time before they take your pellet guns away. Ridiculous and dangerous. BTW, there are 5M NRA members, and 350M guns. If NRA members owned 10 guns each, that still leaves 300M guns owned by non-members. Thoughts? Cheers, Will

Leave a Comment