That's about the extent of where the leftist gun-grabbers and I can seem to find common ground.
Recently, they've adopted a new tactic. They've always, as if on cue, made their emotional appeals to institute "common-sense" gun control, or something similarly-named. But they've always been short on the details. The more rabid (and, as it turns out, more honest) among them will put forth their simple platform: Ban guns. Confiscate them.
In the wake of the tragedy, the politicians and pundits of a more conservative bent will call on an end to politicization of the deaths to drive the gun-grabber agenda. They will say the political discussions have no place on the stage when parents and guardians are still being called down to the morgue to identify their children (which is, incidentally, absolutely right). They will offer "thoughts and prayers", which can seem like an empty platitude. And it sometimes is, but it's our human nature to want to find some way to console the grieving family and friends of the deceased.
As I said, the leftists have amended tactics recently. Now, they will tell the "thoughts and prayers" crowd what they can do with their "thoughts and prayers". They will push back against the call for common decency and implore anyone who will listen: "If not now, then when? Someone must do something!" they will cry.
We are doing something. We're letting the loved ones grieve in peace.
What you, the gun-grabbers, are asking us to do, is make big decisions while emotions are still running high, without the benefit of calm, reasoned, logic-filled discussion that can temper the nasty side effects of rash decisions. Side effects that are much more likely to be seen when logical reflection is allowed to participate.
But that's kind of the idea, isn't it? Because you, the gun-grabbers, know that if we have time to think about your proposals, and give them careful thought, we would never accept them.
So you exploit grief instead. You're despicable.
As to my proposal? Well, it involves analyzing the factors that make these mass shootings all too common:
- Preponderance of firearms, often illegally obtained
- Mental health and criminal background of the shooters
- Environment in which the shootings occur
- Reaction of the shooters when faced with resistance (e.g. being challenged by someone else with a firearm)
The US has a lot of guns, no doubt about it, but increases in legal gun ownership have correlated to a decrease in violent crime. When a certain percentage of the law-abiding public is armed, muggers, rapists, and other violent criminals will only prey on that public as long as the risk is outweighed by reward. A would-be victim that is able to respond with deadly force presents a risk to the health and/or life of the predator-- in other words, the risk goes up.
But what if certain environments reduce the risk to the would-be predator, by legally requiring would-be victims to render themselves defenseless? Usually, this disarming of law-abiding group is done in the interests of perceived safety: Discharge of a firearm, even accidentally, can endanger lives on board a crowded airplane, in a crowded shopping mall, or in a school. In the last example, we're also dealing with young people who have mental and physical abilities on par with mature adults, but often lacking the self-control and ability to think clearly in emotionally-charged environments, so we acknowledge these environments' restrictions are sensible, and we accept rendering ourselves and/or our loved ones defenseless as part of an implicit social contract whereby we get something in return: Rapid transportation to a desired destination, acquisition of materials or services, or an education for ourselves or our progeny.
But it only takes one to violate that contract. With minimal risk and high reward. In the case of the scum that conduct mass shootings, that reward can be revenge, some sort of perverse pleasure, or the desire for immortality through infamy. Both the risk and reward are timely: A shooter can achieve his/her reward in the time before resistance exponentially increases the risk.
So in our closed system, what increases the risk sooner? Removal of the means of violence? As I said, there are a lot of guns in the U.S. Nobody knows the exact number, but it is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions-- a minimum of 1 gun per capita. Confiscation, even if not constitutionally prohibited, would be a Herculean task.
What other controls are at our disposal? Reducing the access to guns from the mentally ill and criminals? We have background checks in place to do just that, but they are built on a system developed by flawed human beings-- some people who shouldn't have access to firearms slip through the cracks and end up with them anyway. Also, because our nation is founded on the notion of individual liberty, we must respect the rights of other, including the undocumented but nevertheless enshrined "right" to privacy-- the health records of our citizens are private, and while disclosure of those records for our mentally ill citizens may serve the interests of the State, our courts have often ruled that the State must demonstrate a compelling reason why they should go against the natural tendency toward individual rights trumping the interests of the State, as per the spirit of the Constitution.
What's left to adjust, in hopes of preventing these terrible tragedies? Increasing the likelihood of the shooter being met with resistance, and sooner. Much data exists to show when most of these scumbags encounter armed resistance, be it a cop, soldier, or average citizen with a gun whom had refused to be slaughtered without a fight. But with the "resistance in street clothes", there's an element of unpredictability: an environment of defenseless victims can be just that until it's not.
Risk versus reward.
No comments:
Post a Comment