GUN Reform is the wrong answer
By: Skye Mo'Ipulelehua Kahoali'I
Tags: Violence, Gun Control, Gun Control Fails, Society And Culture

A former item from my collection

This is another article I fashioned from a response to another Medium author’s article, that basically got too long and encompass much of my feelings on the subject, so here it is. Her article is here.

The problem is you are applying the wrong solution to your identified problem. It looks easy, remove the hazardous object, and all will be magically well. Your child will be safe and you need no longer be worried about having to choose between their life and the pastime your husband enjoys.

Delve into the true scope of the solution you allude to and you will see the magnitude of what you are asking. I also find a few inconsistencies in your logic.

You cite Switzerland as an example to emulate but eschew the very requirement they have that makes their high-ownership, low-crime characteristic possible. It isn’t stringent restrictions on ownership that is at the root of their shining example. It is the mandatory service, the active placing of the community before the self that provides the discipline necessary to allow the keeping of a fully automatic battle rifle at home and available to Swiss Miltia forces, as they have few Active Duty Armed Forces because of their national stance of political neutrality. They also have a largely homogenous population of which only 17.3 % (2018) are of non-European descent. The U.S. contrasts that with a near 40% non-European population if you discount Hispanics and Latinos — both sub-groups having very high Central and Southern American heritages to the point that they can be distinguished as separate from their Spanish or Portuguese ancestry. I point this out only to illustrate that it is much easier to overlay mandatory anything on populations that are more culturally cohesive.

You do properly identify why the issue of violence and not just gun violence, is such a complex problem — “an angry tangled mess of social issues, police brutality, inequality, and mental health, to name a few.” — but as I am oft fond of opining in response to articles such as yours that tout object control as an obvious and correct solution, that particular solution should always be discarded out of hand.

You cannot, I repeat, cannot effect meaningful behavior modification through governmentally imposed object control. Let me say it again even more forcefully.

You cannot effect meaningful behavior modification through OBJECT CONTROL.

There are not enough law enforcement personnel anywhere in the country to enforce any edicts proposing restricting the object, the gun, in gun control. Coupled with active animosity and belligerence in places it’s been tried, like Virginia most recently, and the concept becomes even more futile. There is the small problem of there being more guns than people in this country. Oh, and the wonderful technologies that have brought about the relatively easy manufacture of popular firearms such as the AR-15 rifle, as well as Glock and 1911 pistols at home. The picture is of a competition 1911 pistol I largely and legally built myself.

We’ve already tried object control in America, to spectacular failure, with alcohol and mood/consciousness-altering drugs. We see where it would fail completely with other hazardous objects and so do not even try to propose object control as a panacea, in the areas of smoking and drunken driving. If we are objective, we realize that we cannot even restrict the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction through object control. There will always be bad actors with enough money to circumvent controls, and so equilibrium is maintained by enough stable nations having the nuclear weapons as a deterrent. When it comes to other such weapons, such as chemical or biological ones, it is the unpredictability of casualties that limits their use, a belligerent is as likely to destroy himself as his target by a shift in the wind. Their use also makes territory uninhabitable to anyone, not a result one wants when trying to gain or usurp resources.

So, the million dollar question. What would I propose instead of typical gun control?

Personally, I think some sort of national service should be a requirement for full citizenship, which would include the right of personal firearms ownership, and voting. Non-citizens would be able to rent guns for use at ranges or for hunting purposes. Their rental period would be enforced by a hefty fee as deposit.

I also agree that a demonstrated proficiency test would need to be passed to qualify for that part of citizenship. I would accomplish this by introducing firearms education in the schools as a regular part of the curriculum as well as the return of civics education as a mandatory requirement. And I’d start as early as possible. If we are going to teach our young people about the pitfalls of drug use and active sexuality, should we not teach them about this potential hazard? We require them to take driver’s ed for familiarization with that other most dangerous mechanical object — the family automobile — so why not the family firearm also?

I would start listening to what studies have found out about school shootings, whether of the mass variety or not, and implement the four most pertinent findings as I found out about here.

The most important thing I would undertake nationally would be something that does not sit well with my fellow gun enthusiasts, a universal background check. The one I’m thinking of is not one I’ve seen advanced by anyone other than me.

My universal background check would be performed on everyone. With some regularity. And with a stringency that many will find surprising. As a matter of logic, if such a check is not performed on everyone, it is functionally useless. Buying a gun in a store is not the only way to get a gun. We have to check everyone and courtesy of protocols enacted by the advent of Homeland Security, we can. By now, I think everyone is familiar with having to have your nationally recognized identification card be of the Gold Star bearing variety. This signifies that you’ve been subject to the enhanced vetting and screening protocols that the gold star represents.

It would not be much of a stretch to enhance them further to cover the protocols to vet for gun purchase and ownership. Personally, I might expand them to the level required for National Firearms Act certification. That level currently lets you acquire Class III weapons, like short barrel rifles and fully automatic long and handguns. If it costs more, so what? Do we want enhanced security surrounding the acquisition of firearms or not? Bluntly, pay up or shut up.

There will be phenomenal push-back by the gun crowd, of course, so the hook is that those so certified and designated so by the hologram or encrypted rfid chip or whatever, on their i.d. get the carrot of being able to purchase and own and carry anywhere now legal. So, not on airplanes, probably not at bars, or in government buildings, including schools…maybe. All other restrictions such as magazine capacity are similarly lifted at local, state, and national levels.

Again, proficiency and safety training will have been accomplished in the schools, so the question of novice gun owners having accidents would similarly be reduced.

The biggest change that would occur is that we would finally have a national database of who can and who can’t acquire and own guns. You either can or you can’t, and everyone knows it by just inspecting your i.d. Furthermore, this database would be updated regularly by performing it at every initial application and renewal: driver’s license, state identification, and passport.

If we’re ever going to get a handle on the gun-part of violence in this country, we have to be willing to think outside the box of object control.

I have other controversial ideas about gun rights but those would be for another article.