Gun Violence, Gun Control, and Gun Rights

On October 1^st, 2015 a gunman opened fire at the Umpqua Community College near Roseberg, Oregon. The perpetrator killed nine people and took his own life. This post was originally written on October 2^nd, 2015 in response to the renewed calls for gun control.

Original Blog
I admit I am responding to the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon yesterday. I don’t want to dishonor the lives that were lost by politicizing the tragedy, but it is hard to wait a week before responding and still be a relevant voice in the debate. Even though this probably won’t be widely read, I hope as I write to be as respectful as possible to the families who have lost loved ones as well as to the people who lost their lives.

I also know there are a lot of emotions on every side of this debate. Even though I am writing quickly and attempting to get this out by the end of today, I am trying to keep emotion out of this. I am passionate about gun rights, but I am trying very hard to write this in a way that respects the opinions of people who land on a different side of the argument than me.

I’m going to start right off by ceding the point that compared with the United States, other countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan have very strict gun control laws and have very low homicide rates. My question is how much of that is actually related to gun control laws?

In Australia, the overall murder rate was very low before strict gun control laws were adopted. Gun crime was also rare. In 1989, Australia’s homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 people. It slowly rose through 1996 and then spiked after their gun buyback program. It wasn’t until 2004 that their homicide rate fell below 1.9 again and it has continued to decrease. In 2012 the homicide rate was 1.1 with a total of 254 murders, 226 of which were caused by firearms.

Japan has very strict gun control laws and yet there are still more than 700,000 privately owned firearms in Japan. The average rate of gun related deaths when you add everything is one of the lowest in the world. Because the only two places that lead Japan in fewest gun deaths have incomplete data (Azerbaijan and Hong Kong), I would say that Japan probably has the lowest gun death rate in the world.

In the United Kingdom, there are more than 4 million privately owned firearms. The most recent homicide rate available was for 2011 and they had 653 homicides, only 38 of those were with firearms.

On the other hand, Switzerland has some of the highest gun ownership per capita in the world. In addition to having very permissive gun ownership laws, Switzerland has a mandatory conscription program. Every adult male must join their military between the age of 20 and 30 unless they are deemed unfit for service. Exemptions for citizens living abroad are granted during peace time. They are issued a fully automatic rifle that is theirs to keep for the rest of their lives. However, the weapon must be converted to semi-auto upon completion of service. Switzerland is the number 4 country in the world for firearm ownership per capita, but doesn’t even fall into the top half of gun murders. Their firearm murder rate is 10^th from the bottom.

Then, Venezuela, Belize, and El Salvador have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Venezuela, for example completely bans the private ownership of firearms and yet they are the number two country in the world for firearm homicide. El Salvador is number three for gun homicides. Belize is number four for homicides in the world and more than half of those are committed with firearms.

These are just the facts. I don’t think it is fair to correlate fewer guns with less crime, more guns with less crime, fewer guns with more crime, or more guns with more crime. I personally think this issue is much bigger and more complex than simple gun control issues. There are other factors at play that we in the United States have to deal with that places like the UK, Australia, and Japan don’t have to deal with.

One of the biggest problems I have with most gun control proposals is that we already have some great gun control laws on the books that our government is not enforcing. One example is what is called a try-and-buy where a person who is not legally allowed to own weapons attempts to purchase one through legal means. Just attempting to do this is a felony. Less than one tenth of one percent of these people are ever even prosecuted!

Straw purchases on behalf of known felons are a pretty big deal too and they are rarely prosecuted. The largest source of guns provided to people not legally able to own firearms is through straw purchases. Some people want gun dealers to be prosecuted, but it doesn’t make sense to hold law abiding citizens who follow the law for the actions of a criminal.

If a person walks into a gun store, goes through the background check, they are legally able to own a weapon, and states they are buying the weapon for themselves, what right does a gun seller have to question that? Should they have that right? I don’t think so. I think it’s dumb to even ask why a person is purchasing a gun because as the character, Dr. Gregory House is so fond of saying, “Everybody lies!”

That being said, if a gun is used in a crime and the person received that weapon illegally through a straw purchase, the purchaser should be held just as guilty as the perpetrator of the crime for aiding and abetting. That almost never happens!

Let’s imagine for a moment that we could make all guns simply disappear. All of them. A wizard shows up at the UN, they agree to let this guy make all firearms and ammunition disappear. Because of that, gun manufacturers decide to close up shop and by the end of the day and the Wizard makes all their machines go away too. No more guns, bullets, or dedicated firearm manufacturing equipment. Then, Mr. Wizard disappears back to the other dimension he came from.

How long would it be before guns would be back on the street?

The reality is that within days, maybe the next day, weapons and ammunition would be ready to go and back on the street. Within weeks and maybe only days, we would hear of firearms deaths. How can that be? Because the knowledge of how to make firearms and ammunition isn’t limited to corporate firearms manufacturers. You would literally not only have to get rid of weapons, ammunition, and weapons making machines, you would also have to get rid of people many, if not most of whom have never stepped foot into a firearms factory.

Many of the weapons used by lower members of the drug cartels and gangs aren’t professionally manufactured weapons, but improvised or homemade weapons. Many of these weapons can be manufactured to be fully automatic. The weapons don’t last long, but they don’t need to. They just need to last long enough. Many gang and cartel hits are done with homemade weapons that are designed to break after use or are just thrown away.

Ammunition is very easy to make too. Even easier than firearms to make.

The genie is out of the bottle and there’s no way to get him back in.

At the bottom of the list of how criminals get firearms is theft. Less than 15% of firearms obtained by criminals in America are obtained through theft.

Ultimately, I don’t think this is a gun control issue. All the law abiding gun owners I know are not violent and do not want to kill people. They will not provide weapons to people not legally able to own them. They take steps to make sure their weapons are secured, hidden, or otherwise out of reach of children and criminals.

There is, however, a concern about a fringe minority of law abiding gun owners who have an itchy trigger finger and would likely pull their weapon at the first opportunity. These people think everybody ought to be walking around with a gun on their hip. There is something to the saying, “An armed society is a polite society,” but I don’t think that giving everybody a gun is the answer to ending gun violence.

I do think that there should be a better way to ensure that people with psychological issues don’t get access to firearms. Many have proposed a mental health database. My only issue with that is that some people may abuse such a system, such as mental health professionals who are also gun control activists. There also needs to be a way to ensure that if a person is flagged for not being able to buy a weapon, that it isn’t revealed they are a struggling with mental health issues. The right to privacy is also a big concern to me.

As I said before, more guns does not necessarily equal more crime and fewer guns do not necessarily mean less crime. But there are some “common sense” things we can do without further infringing on people’s rights.

First of all, “Gun Free Zone” shouldn’t mean “Unarmed Security” as it does in so many places. There are many places that are gun free zones where security is armed. Why can’t we have armed security at schools too? Major colleges and universities have their own police forces, but community colleges, and most primary and secondary schools have unarmed security if they have any security at all.

The problem with unarmed security is their only response to any kind of violence is observe and report. In most cases in most states, unarmed security cannot intervene even to stop a fight. Unarmed security usually has no arrest authority. In fact, unarmed security in most cases has fewer rights than non-uniformed private civilians. One of the biggest problems with unarmed security is that in most places they are required to have very little training and almost no experience. There are security officers with military and law enforcement backgrounds who can react properly in emergency situations, but most unarmed security have very few professional skills to properly respond. They are, in essence, nothing more than window dressing.

Occasionally, some schools will have school resource officers who are sworn and armed police officers. In many cases, SROs are responsible for more than one school, though, so there should be armed security for occasions when the SRO is not there. Besides, a single police officer cannot protect a school by himself.

Some will say, if there is an incident, just call the police. By the time the police show up, usually all they can do is draw chalk lines around the bodies.

In the case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the perpetrator began his massacre by shooting his way through the glass of the locked door of the front entrance of the school. If security were hired to protect the school, that’s exactly where we would expect to find them – at the front of the school. If there was a security officer that was armed and trained, it may not have completely prevented the massacre, but more than likely would have been a deterrent to the perpetrator even attempting his act of evil on the school to begin with.

As far as letting more people bring their weapons to schools and other gun free zones, I don’t think that is necessarily the answer. When it comes to any kind of school, even a government run school, being on their property is pretty much the same as being on private property – they can regulate your presence there however they want. If you violate school rules, you don’t get to override disciplinary action just because you’re a tax or tuition payer. Similarly, schools should continue to have the right to restrict the presence of firearms on campus.

Active police officers, however, should continue to be given blanket permission to carry, concealed or otherwise, anytime and anywhere. In fact, I would say that a sworn law enforcement officer should be able to carry their weapons in any state, at any time, and in any place.

Military personnel with appropriate training should also be able to carry under the same circumstances. But notice I said “appropriate training.” Just because a person served in the military doesn’t mean they have the capability to handle a weapon under duress. As an example, I was on active duty for 20 years and received extensive firearms, tactical, and security training. I would feel very comfortable with someone with my level of knowledge carrying a weapon and responding to an active shooter situation.

On the other hand, there are many people who go through military basic training and they are familiar with weapons, but not tactics or many security procedures. Many military personnel never touch a weapon again once they leave basic training. I would not be comfortable with people like that even having a weapon, much less responding to an active shooter incident.

If a person takes the initiative to get the training, there should be a licensing procedure that allows people to carry firearms in places where firearms are normally prohibited. A Federal Firearms License is an example, but I don’t believe licensure should be that restrictive or expensive.

Schools should bring back firearms familiarization and safety training, and marksmanship clubs. Such classes and clubs would be elective and extracurricular respectively, so parents who are conscientious objectors would not have to worry about their children being forced to handle firearms.

I am willing to compromise on many of these things. I would just be happy if more or all schools would hire armed security.

Prohibiting gun ownership isn’t the answer. Prohibiting certain kinds of firearms is also not the answer. Most firearms homicides, including mass murders, are not committed using so-called “assault weapons,” they are committed using handguns. Even when rifles are used, they do not always fall in the category of “assault weapon.”

In 1994, an assault weapons ban went into effect. It essentially prohibited the manufacture and sale of weapons that were “military style” and had things like folding stocks, scopes, pistol grips, flash suppressors, and other things. Weapons could have one or two of those things, but not all and certain combinations were illegal as well.

The problem is that those prohibitions did absolutely nothing to curb mass murders. In 1999, the Columbine High School shooting was committed by two teenagers who were illegally in possession of all of their firearms. One pistol was used and two shot guns. Additionally, a High-Point 995 Carbine rifle, was used. The rifle was a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip. However, it did not have a scope, flash suppressor, folding stock, extended magazines or anything else that fell within the definition of “assault weapon.” It was just as deadly.

Many hunting rifles would not change their functionality or effectiveness by adding any of the restricted items under the assault weapons ban. However, simply because they have a “military appearance” which really means they look scary to some people, these weapons were banned. I have even had people tell me that you can’t hunt with assault weapons. That’s nonsense.

These additions don’t even make weapons more dangerous! When I first qualified on a rifle in the U.S. Navy, the rifle I qualified with was the M-14. A standard issue shipboard M-14 had no pistol grip, no scope, a five round magazine, and very little in the way of mounts for accessories. I qualified Expert with all rounds in the black.

The first time I shot an M-16 a few years later for my rifle requalification, I barely squeaked an expert qualification. That was with a pistol grip, extended magazine, and lots of other bells and whistles. My personal feeling is that I would rather have an M-14 than an M-16. Of course, on most ships, security watches use either M-16s or other 5.56mm variants like the M-4, so I didn’t have that choice at the end of my career and of course, with practice, I got better. I never aced my qual the way I did with an M-14, but I got better.

Some say that military style firearms should only be available to the militia. Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said the second amendment should be amended to say “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

Those who want this kind of restriction will actually make it easier for many people to have firearms because according to 10 U.S. Code § 311 “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

If you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45, or a female in any branch of the military or national guard, you are the militia. Limiting firearms ownership to members of the militia would open the door to people who are not now allowed to own firearms and make it harder for civilian women to own firearms. Justice Stevens wants to amend the US Constitution to be sexist. I’m sure it’s inadvertent, but it still displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose and scope of the second amendment that exists even among legal experts.

The 10 U.S. Code definition we have was codified in the 1950s, but the idea that the militia is every able bodied American goes back to the founding of this country. Samuel Adams said the militia consisted of all free citizens. The majority of the Founding Fathers, if not all of them did not want citizens to own weapons so they could hunt. Rather, they wanted free citizens to own weapons to keep the government in check.

The militia was never seen by the Founders to be the U.S. military or even the State National Guards. Ever. The militia was and is everyone not in the military who is physically, legally, and morally (not a conscientious objector or a criminal) capable of bearing arms.

I have a lot of ideas and I have written my legislators, voted, and I write about issues I feel strongly about. Are my ideas good ideas? I think so. Are my ideas the best ideas? Probably not. Are they the only ideas? Definitely not. Am I open to other ideas? Certainly and I am willing to debate the issue in a calm and rational manner. I even promise to turn my CAPS lock off.

The bottom line for me is I want to know that I can protect myself and my family in any situation. I also want to know that when I am in a place or circumstance where I can’t defend myself or my family with firearms, there is someone there, or something in place that ensures the safety of my family and me.

I want to apologize if any of my emotion or passion came out in a way that is offensive. I also want to apologize to my fellow writers and grammar Nazis because this article is a first draft with no edits and no bibliography. This article was hastily written on breaks at work, so no matter how hard I try, I’m sure I offended someone, misspelled something, or messed up my punctuation. If I could just sit and write for eight hours a day, my articles would be awesome… in my not so humble opinion.