Sticking To Our Guns

Why America Needs To Change Our Methods When It Comes To Firearms

By Shawn Johnson:

www.libvoice1776.blogspot.com

https://www.facebook.com/liberalvoice1776?ref=hl

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado, along with massive violence and gun death in towns and cities around the country, have caused Americans to force politicians into focusing their efforts on reducing gun violence and eliminating mass shootings. Over five hundred children die each year from being accidentally shot by another child. Many of the gun deaths are suicides. Many other western industrialized nations have found sound legislation massively reduces gun deaths in their countries. Why isn't America attempting to mimic some of what these countries are doing so successfully?

The answer is found in Congress and in the state legislatures and governorships. Democrats are in favor of gun ownership, and Republicans are so turned on by firing a weapon, their eyes tend to roll back into their heads much like a great white shark devouring a sea lion. Every single liberal argument I have heard on this subject starts out with, "Nobody is trying to take your gun." While this is factually true, I think we must ask ourselves, "Why isn't anyone trying to take your gun?"

And, for the record, I am not talking about hunting rifles, bb guns, single and double barrel shot guns. I am not even suggesting that someone shouldn't be allowed to purchase and own a collection of antique weapons and firearms. But, why do you need a handgun? Why do you need an assault weapon? Protection?

Well, according to Harvard School of Public Health, more handguns equal more death, not more protection. Here is what they had to say:

1. Across states, more guns = more unintentional firearm deaths

We analyzed data for 50 states over 19 years to investigate the relationship between gun prevalence and accidental gun deaths across different age groups. For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2001; 33:477-84.



2. Across states, unsafe gun storage = more unintentional firearm deaths

We analyzed data from the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System that asked questions about guns and gun storage in the home, combined with information on deaths from the National Center for Health Statistics. Across states, both firearm prevalence AND questionable storage practices (i.e. storing firearms loaded and unlocked) were associated with higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David; Vriniotis, Mary. Firearm storage practices and rates of unintentional firearm deaths in the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2005; 37:661-67.



3. Youth killed in gun accidents are shot by other youth

The majority of people killed in firearm accidents are under age 24, and most of these young people are being shot by someone else, usually someone their own age. The shooter is typically a friend or family member, often an older brother. By contrast, older adults are at far lower risk of accidental firearm death, and most often are shooting themselves. This article highlights one of the many benefits of the National Violent Death Reporting System. Before the NVDRS, data on the shooter in unintentional gun deaths were not readily available

Hemenway, David; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. Unintentional firearm deaths: a comparison of other-inflicted and self-inflicted shootings. Accident Analysis & Prevention.2010; 42:1184-8.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/



Americans are not protecting their families with firearms. They are destroying them. In order to "protect" your family with a firearm, that firearm must be readily available. But, intruders into your home are not being stopped with guns. Most intruders are stopped if there is someone home, gun or no gun. Criminals are not breaking into random homes to commit murder. They break into random homes to steal things. Hence, they will most likely do it when you are not home. Who is being stopped by firearms? Your son or daughter are stopping their friend, brother, or sister from having a reasonable chance to reach adulthood. This is not acceptable, and liberals need to say so.

Why else do you need a gun? To stop the government from a tyrannical takeover? This may be the most ridiculous argument ever posed by any person regarding the gun debate. Yes, in 1787 when the people basically were their own military, the government decided to pass an amendment to the Constitution ensuring that citizens were able to take up arms to help the government fight Native Americans, the French, slaves, and other threats to the superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon establishment. At no time did the government authorize individual citizens to take up arms against the duly elected representative government who had just committed mass treason by writing the Constitution and tearing up the Articles of Confederation.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say the founders did intend to have an armed citizenry in case we ever had a Marxist socialist black president who decided to force Americans into a communist revolution. Do you think for one second, that the founders could have envisioned the firepower the United States military would possess in the twenty-first century? If you want to know how effective an assault weapon would be against Navy Seal Team Six, Google "death of Bin Laden," and see what you find. Our military has drones with hellfire missiles attached to them which are capable of leveling a city block. Do you honestly believe for one second your assault rifle with a one hundred round clip is going to do anything against a drone? And, even if you possess the highest level of mental delusion, and your answer is "yes," you would actually have to see it coming, which you wouldn't.

Maybe the most ironic feature of this strange "government takeover" argument is that the same people who insist the government is going to launch a civil war against its own people, are the same people who tell us that the perpetrators of mass shootings are mentally ill, and we should keep guns from the mentally ill. Why are people like Wayne Lapierre allowed to go on national television and make these ridiculous assertions without being laughed at and made fun of? I believe the first sign of dangerous mental illness is to believe that there is a massive conspiracy by the government to take you out, and you decide to arm yourself to the teeth to prevent that conspiracy.

Now, Wayne Lapierre isn't an idiot, and he realizes that his arguments don't bear any fruit. But, he isn't speaking to the guy who owns hunting rifles, and he isn't speaking to the guy who owns a shotgun locked in a case. He is speaking to the guy who has orgasms just thinking that there will be a military style ambush on his home and property. The guy who right now is at a gun range wildly firing at a target. In a month, this guy will be shooting up his former place of employment. Wayne Lapierre wants this guy to do just that, so he can appear on national television and give his Frank Luntz tagline of "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!" Lapierre knows that the sick individual who owns a legal arsenal believes he is the "good guy with the gun." After all, he is stopping his government from a tyrannical revolution. He is doing so by wasting the lives of six year olds.

Why does Wayne Lapierre have this sick and twisted agenda? Because he is the corporate shill of the gun industry. This is a multi-billion dollar industry which needs to be fed. And, Republicans have no problem helping him feed the industry. Their imaginary target is President Barack Obama. President Obama is a right of center Democrat. As you read this book, I will prove to you that he has much more in common with Nixon and Reagan than he does with Roosevelt and Truman. His ideas are very centrist, and he has really taken the non-controversial side of most issues. The vast majority of Americans wholeheartedly agree with his policy positions. Even forty to fifty percent of Republicans agree with Obama on major issues.

So, the Republicans invented a different Obama. They tag him with labels like, "the most liberal President ever, and communist, socialist, Marxist, and Leninist." The say things like, "He isn't one of us." And, ultimately, they end their inane tirade with, "He is coming for your gun!" And, this line of dialogue is very effective. When Obama was elected in 2008, gun sales and bullet sales skyrocketed. Never mind the fact that Obama had said almost nothing about gun control when he ran for President. In fact, no Democrat since Al Gore had raised the issue of gun control in a Presidential election. As I explained before, Democrats like guns. These facts do not deter Republicans or the NRA. They continue to subliminally instruct fear laden individuals with access to firearms to fight for a cause which does not exist. It is nothing more than militant McCarthyism. And, for the record, the number of tyrants taken down by the citizenry in the history of the United States is zero. The number of American lives which have been lost to gun violence since 1968 is a little over 1.3 million. More American lives have been lost to guns since 1968 than have been lost to wars during the history of the United States.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

The Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to bear any arm they desire. Only because of a perverted, distorted view of the Supreme Court does the Second Amendment give average citizens the right to own a gun without being part of a well regulated militia. The Second Amendment does not prohibit the government from regulating and controlling these firearms. So what can we do as a government and as a society?

By reading what I have written, one could make a solid argument that I am advocating for law enforcement to walk into a person's home and remove his or her firearms at will. That is certainly not the case. In fact, I don't believe that the simple act of making guns illegal will stop all gun violence or even reduce it to a great enough degree.

For example, making drugs illegal does not stop the sale, production, and distribution of said drugs. It only makes it so drug users must commit other acts of criminality in order to obtain and utilize these drugs. So, no, I don't advocate making a law which states that nobody gets a gun anymore. What I do advocate is treating firearms much in the same way we treat other dangerous legal possessions.

One possession which comes to mind is the automobile. An owner of a vehicle, in order to purchase, operate, and store that vehicle, must have a valid license which is obtained by completing a regulated driving course and taking a driving exam. The owner must also secure insurance in case he or she does any harm with that vehicle. The owner is also prohibited from owning certain types of vehicles such as tanks, and certain owners of vehicles like semi-trailers must obtain special licensing and follow special rules in order to operate those vehicles. There are databases of every single licensed driver, and in many states licensing information is made available for public information. All drivers must follow the rules of the road, and every driver and passenger of a vehicle must wear a seatbelt at all times. And, last but not least, there are several public campaigns designed to inform the populace about vehicle safety. All of these provisions and laws are seen as reasonable and responsible by a mass consensus of citizens. These things are not seen as liberal or conservative.

We need to treat firearms the same way. And, please do not attempt to use the Second Amendment to distinguish the difference. Cars were not around when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Therefore, the assumption that they would not have placed provisions in the Constitution regarding the ownership and use of automobiles is null and void. We cannot say what the founders would have or would not have done. What we can say is that the Supreme Court has given the federal government the right to treat guns the same way they treat cars and the federal government has the right and responsibility to do just that. Wayne Lapierre, the NRA, the Republicans and Democrats, and the twenty-one percent of Americans who own firearms need to come to the realization that what we are doing is not working, and arming every single American will not make us safer. They need to stop advocating on behalf of the gun manufacturers and start advocating on behalf of the next five hundred children who will die accidentally this year, the next thirty-two five year olds who will perish at their school, the next crowded theater, the next political figure, the next victim of gang violence, the next husband, wife, father, and mother. It is time this country takes a stand against one of its most deep-seeded evils.