Walkin' in a Splintered Gun-derland pt. 3: The Palinode

    I've expressed my opinion on firearms in America several times now, and now I would like to go back and overturn some previous opinions. I made it clear when I started this blog that I was not above admitting when I was wrong, in light of new information. I am indeed going back on some opinions I've expressed on gun control in the past. I believe in the American ideals of freedom on a personal level and on a national level, and to ban guns would be a ideological infringement that constitutes treating the symptom and not the disease. I hold personal responsibility in exceedingly high esteem in all aspects of my life, and guns can undeniably be used responsibly and therefore should never be banned. In essence, it should not be the guns that come under scrutiny, but how they are used.
    Guns must be kept legal because they are harmless in the hands of responsible adults. Likewise, drugs, prostitution, gambling, and any manner of vices should be viewed the same way, and I know that many people who are pro-guns may disagree. Prostitution is a prime example of something like guns, that when approached responsibly, can be utilized safely to the satisfaction of all parties involved. If used recklessly, guns can kill people, many people, very quickly. Prostitution, if used recklessly, can severly damage people physically, emotionally and psychologically. From the cold, logical standpoint of "which is worst in it's worse case scenario," prostitution seems to have even more of a right to be legal than guns. But this isn't about which "has more of a right to be legal." This is about the oppression that exists in taking the decision of whether or not to act responsible out of the hands of American citizens. The government should not be telling it's citizens "we do not trust any of you with this gun, or with this prostitute, or with these narcotics, or your with own gambling money" without giving each citizen the chance to show they can exercise responsibility.
    A vice is by definition, something that goes against a moral code. Morality is concerned with good and evil, right and wrong. Some things are very clear. Harming another person is evil, and helping another person is good. However, there is an ocean of issues that cannot be so clearly defined. These grey areas are notoriously difficult to legislate, due to conflicting opinions. That word, opinion, is the keystone of why the issues are so difficult to govern. We cannot and should not, as a nation that loves it's freedom above all, pass laws based on opinions in any way. I abhor prostitution, from the predatory pimps, to the greedy clients, and workers with their clear lack of self-respect or standards for themselves. I loathe guns, also, as something I find completely obsolete inside our country. The ease of which they can be obtained is appalling and the devastating degree of some tragedies we have experienced were possible due to guns. However, bans are an indirect, lazy and ineffective solution. It's my right to think something is evil, it's their right to think it is perfectly acceptable, and if we can't come to an agreement based on something substantial, then neither of us has a right to force change on the other.
    The solution lies in a nationwide effort from each and every one of us to be responsible, teach responsibility, educate the ignorant about the dangers of irresponsibility. We also must be insightful enough to recognize when our fellow humans are a danger those around them and courageous take preventative measures so we aren't forced to take retaliatory measures. The only action I see the government needing to take, is the role of watchdog. When there is  potential for someone to harm to others, it is perfectly reasonable and prudent to have an authoritative body in place to restrict access for malicious, unstable, or irresponsible people. To the tree-hugging hippy liberals, telling others they cannot do something because you think it is wrong is called fascism, and for a nation that places such a high value on freedom, fascism is not compatible. To the right-wing nutjobs, this is not about guns, or even about protection, it is about personal and interpersonal responsibility, and you must decide if you are pro-gun because you really like guns, or if you support the idea that it's not about what you are using, but about how it is being used, and the full implications of that. Use and abuse are two completely different things, and unfortunately for our freedom, many people try to blur or ignore this distinction. I've been guilty of it myself, but my personal ideas of right and wrong do not give me, or anyone else, the privilege to restrict another responsible adult from doing what she or he thinks is right, if all we have to base it on is opinions.

Walkin' in a Splintered Gun-derland pt. 1

   In the fallout of the Newtown, CT tragedy, gun control has become a fertile ground of rabid debate. I've already gotten in a few arguments on the topic and I have not found anyone able to convince me to change my opinion. Despite what some Arizona lawmakers seem to think, the laws governing firearms need to be tightened in some way. Make no mistake, I'm not professing that I have the exact solution, I merely recognize the progress that must be made. The facets of this issue are many, (and I plan to address as many of them as I can think of, one at a time) but today I want to address only the logical fallacy of comparing gun control to drug laws.
   This is one of the most common arguments facing people like me. NRA supporters just love throwing around the 'how's that war on drugs going, and why should we ban guns when the drug war is failing so miserably?' Yes, it's true that if we banned guns it would create another criminal enterprise like the drug cartels. However, there are very few people in the country who are actually trying to completely ban guns, and I am not one of them. However, if you are of the opinion that firearm regulations in the country as a whole are anything but lax, you are mistaken and it deeply worries me. Both sides of this debate like to point to the children, so here are some facts with regard to guns, drugs and children. 40% of high school students admit to having tried marijuana, a schedule 1 illegal narcotic**. Also, one third of families (that's 33 and a third percent) in America who own guns also have children*. I was not able to find any data regarding how many children actually tried shooting a gun to compare to trying marijuana, so these statistics are not exactly parallel, but it illustrates my point, that there is already less demand for guns than there is currently for drugs among young people. And drugs are entirely illegal, not simply (under)regulated. With these obvious gaps in demand for guns versus drugs, I have a very hard time believing then, that gun control laws will lead to criminal activity on the same scale. Put it this way, there are already illegal weapons markets in the U.S. supplying weapons to organized crime groups who don't want to deal in serial numbers and licensing. Would restricting widespread access to guns lead to more of the general, law-abiding population to turn criminal, buying guns illegally just to have them? Compared to the current demand for drugs even though they are illegal, I see no logical reason to believe that increased gun control would bring drug-level criminal activity.
   What I really want to say about all this is that drugs are for self-destruction and guns are for the destruction of something or more accurately someone else. Therefore, from an ethical standpoint, I see huge differences in laws regarding one and the other. Like banners and headlines cry out, my interests are in the protection of the children, not protecting the guns. Maybe we need more in-depth psychological evaluations before gun licenses are issued. Maybe certain kinds of guns, like automatic weapons should be banned, but hunting rifles should be OK. Maybe we should raise the legal age to use guns or even include gun safety in schools. Maybe gun safes should be mandatory or there should be increased ability to track who is buying and moving guns. Maybe gun license renewals need to be more frequent. Maybe the qualifications to get a gun should be harder. I don't know the best solution, but I do know the worst solution: inaction and denial.
   No real harm can come from increased regulation, only perceived harm. Guns are not the only method of personal defense, and hunting is not a necessity. I could even see me, personally, target shooting for recreation, however, I also play video games for fun. If Counter Strike 1.6 was responsible for the deaths of a classroom of kindergarteners, I would feel the same way, and call for the game's banning. And no, I'm not talking about the influence on the crime, I'm talking about the means; no video game disc can fire .30 caliber rounds 800 times a minute. The video games vs. guns post is one for the future. The evidence of apathy to this cause fills headlines with the worst news imaginable, and no solution will make everyone happy or work instantaneously. However, we need to make a conscientious effort and we need to try now, before another maniac, who ought to be in a jacket that makes him hug himself, exploits the gaping loopholes and lax laws, and another community is left in desolation and grief.
Sources:
*http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/gunsafety.html
**http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/marijuana-use-in-high-school/

Oh, Is That All?

   When I first heard word that there was an Internet censorship bill before congress, my thoughts turned to the darkest, most revolting corners of the 'net. And in defense of freedom of expression and thought, I was planning out a blog post toeing the gray areas of our First Amendment. I thought maybe kiddie porn sites, or prostitution under the guise of an escort service. When I started poking into it, I was floored. Piracy?? Media-swapping? That's what they're considering allowing broad censorship of the web for? I recognize the intent, and from a purely legal standpoint, the end result is certainly clear and right: to stop information piracy and protect intellectual property. However, I absolutely do not see how the ends justify the means in this case.
      What I see when I look at this bill is a gang of miserly lawyers and record company CEOs who want to be even richer coercing our government to use a blowtorch to kill a ant. Or to be fair, millions of ants. However an exterminator uses a very guided, surgical approach to remove ants, not burn down the house. The government hasn't been able to effectively stop individuals from pirating music, so they are lashing out at the mode of piracy: the websites. Would they also suggest that boatmakers and weapons manufacturers be liable for what Somalian pirates are doing in North Africa? People are the ones breaking laws and pirating music, not the websites themselves. The bill would allow websites to be sued or taken down if their subscribers are suspected of pirating media through their site.
     As usual, the big corporations will remain largely out of danger and the biggest casualities would be the smaller, less popular sites with less means for legal defense. The government and lawyers will truly be shooting the messenger on this one, due to their own ineffectiveness at stopping piracy from the actual individual people copying music. Media piracy is illegal and if the lawyers and companies with claims to the media want to take their own action thats fine. But this kind of commissioned legislation creates far too much collateral damage. There is an answer to preventing piracy, but this is absolutely not it. This seems to be still another another case of government over-action in response to the lobbying of the wealthy that will hurt more innocent people than it helps. I don't know how many more ways I can say it: the ends don't justify these means.