Thoughts on Firearms in the Aftermath of the Pulse Shootings

I have a friend who posted the following on Facebook:

I imagine the conversation would go more like

Liberal: We should ban *assault* weapons.
Conservative: There is no such thing.
End of civil discussion.

That's a problem.  I mean, I think the vast majority of us agree on the extremes.  Like, (1) maybe we can agree it's okay to own a rifle for hunting or recreational shooting, and (2) maybe we can agree private citizens shouldn't be able to purchase machine guns. Between the extremes, it's just a matter of drawing lines.  What level of lethality should be legal?  It's hard to get anywhere in that debate when we can't even agree on what to call the line.  Or even worse, we dig in our heels and think the others stupid for disagreeing with us.

Personally, I think the line should be closer to the less lethal extreme than the more lethal.  As in, I'd like to see more regulations.  I think you should need a license to own a firearm, getting a license should require a background check and when you purchase a firearm you should be required to register it.  You should be required to store it securely and separately from its ammo.

I think we should ban the sale of assault weapons.  I realize that is not a technical firearm term ... but it can be given a legal definition.  Contrary to the NRA bluster about "banning guns because they look scary", the Brady Bill actually did a good job of defining "assault weapon".  It identified parts of a firearm that are designed to help it shoot more targets, more quickly and more accurately.  If any given firearm, no matter what it's marketed as, had a certain number of those qualities, it was an assault weapon as defined by law. Not because it "looked scary", but because it was designed to be more deadly.

I don't like that we can carry firearms around in public.  Accidents happen.  People execute poor judgement.  It's not that I object to someone having a gun on hand when a murderer shows up at the bar.  I object to people bringing guns there every other night.  I mean, look at the context of a bar; patrons are engaged in highly emotional, high stake, alcohol infused mating rituals.  I believe it's perfectly reasonable to ask bar-going folks to leave their guns at home.

But even not talking about bars, I don't feel safer knowing the people around me have guns.  At the store, I don't know most of the people walking through the aisles with me.  Probably they're mentally stable, probably they'll execute sound judgement, probably their firearm will not discharge accidentally.  But if their gun was at home there would be a 0% chance that their mental state or judgement or stupid accident would get someone in the store shot.  It may be that carrying a gun around in public, the chance of an incident is very small, but it's greater than zero.  And greater than zero is significantly different from zero.

I don't actually dislike guns.  I've been shooting.  It was fun.  I didn't enjoy it so much that I'm willing to spend much money on it to buy my own guns or do it very often.  But I understand why someone would enjoy it.  I don't object to gun ownership, but I think it would be reasonable to regulate it more than we do.

However, while I do believe that stricter regulations would decrease the number of killings in the USA, and that's worthwhile, I also believe more regulation just treats the symptoms of our real problem.  The real problem America has with guns is our attitude.  We actually believe they are a legitimate way to deal with crime.  We think it's okay to kill or threaten to kill someone who is stealing our property.  We think showing someone that we have a gun will diffuse a potentially violent situation.  We think there is so much violent crime that we need guns to protect ourselves.  At least, given the state of gun laws in our country, those seem to be the majority opinions.  I think that's a shame.