Dear Human,
You don’t know me, but I respect you. You don’t know me, but I am thankful for you. My best friend is among you as are several friends from high school. You are the “good guy.” The one who can protect me from the “bad guy,” right?
Though I respect you and am grateful for your desire to protect yourself and the people around you, I don’t trust you. Though I trust my best friend, I am still uncomfortable when she has her weapon and have previously asked her to alert me to its presence when we go out together. I want to trust her because I know her, but I don’t know you; how could I trust you? Let alone with my life.
I don’t mean to sound harsh — this is not an attempt to be rude, callous, or spiteful. Precisely the opposite, actually. In America, it is well known that we need more trust, compassion, love, and tolerance. Even though I appreciate your protection, I am still frightened of the gun under your shirt.
My intentions are friendly. In the wake of the Orlando shooting, I write to you directly as a cry for help. For myself, my family, and my friends, some of whom have already been subjected to the media and the NRA who insist one of the “good guys” would have been enough to keep members of their family alive. I am begging you to open your ears to discourse. To let your metaphorical (and physical) guard down long enough to hear me out…
I am frightened because I have seen your friends in action. They have regularly failed to protect others from the bad guys with guns. Some success stories exist but for the most part, the little research we have is clear that they are outliers. Anomalies. Some of you were at the club that night. Your peers may have saved some lives, but they were still unable to prevent the horrific events from continuing prior to the arrival of the SWAT team. The forensics report has yet to be published, but there is suspicion that possible cross-fire injuries added to the death toll late Saturday night.
Though I am glad you are here, the “good guy” is not enough.
The “good guy with a gun” argument is a moot point. It is unproductive to those who never wish to hold a gun, and it is emotionally destructive to those who have suffered devastating losses via gun violence. A quick google search shows that there are times that the “good guy” prevails, but those instances are vastly outnumbered by the massacres, violent murders, suicides, and accidents that cause gun deaths. Not just the toddler-related accidents, but the adult kind. The cross-fire kind. The butterfingers kind. The instances where the “good guy” uses a gun to threaten an assailant and fires into a crowd. The times when a “good guy” temporarily becomes a “bad guy” in the heat of the moment. The times where the “good guy” tries to prevent average crime and outright misses. I am sincerely thankful for the good intentions, but there is a bigger problem that must be addressed. Ten successful instances out of several hundreds of shootings is not a sufficient defense. The “good guy” is not enough.
Please don’t get upset; I am not here to demand your guns. While I believe that guns are dangerous and destructive, I am not naïvely suggesting that banning more guns will solve the problem. I have done a ton of research in the last week, now have a more thorough understanding of different types of guns, and realize that fully automated assault weapons are already illegal in our country. However, when the “good guy” often fails or underestimates the chaos of a gunfight, causing them to make rash, sometimes wrong, decisions, it is impossible to believe that the “good guy” is enough. Even retired military, combat veterans, police officers, and other experienced “good guys” agree that the “good guy” can ‘absolutely panic’ in active shooter situations. What little research we have substantiates my fears.
What I would like to discuss with you, with your friends, and with the United States Congress, is better preventative measures.
I know what you’re thinking — I’ve heard it all this month. “Where there’s a will, there’s a way… There’s no way to prevent a baddie from getting ahold of a firearm… Banning guns doesn’t work… If they don’t get them legally, they will get them illegally anyway… It’s my Constitutional right to have access to weapons and you cannot legally take that away…”
You are correct. Every American citizen has the right to own firearms to protect themselves against attackers and unruly governments, but, to quote a Stanford Progressive editor emeritus,
“The interaction of regulation and the Second Amendment individual right to bear arms, not the existence of an individual right to bear arms, is the rightful arena of debate.”
In layman’s terms, I cannot ask that your right to bear arms be stricken from the Bill of Rights, but I can beg you to help discuss regulation of arms in America. Ideas for preventing hateful people — bigots, people with a history of violence, religious and political extremists, and homophobic assholes like Omar Mateen — from obtaining killing machines so easily. Regulations we desperately need in this country.
Those of us who believe that people like this should be restricted from legally purchasing guns are attempting to open discussions. We want to talk, calmly, about feasible precautions that might deter violent men like Mateen from legally gaining firepower within a week of committing the deadliest mass shooting in American history. We shouldn’t have to hold a 15-hour-long filibuster in order to have our voices heard. The Senate’s resistance to discussing guns is the adult equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears. After last Monday’s hearings, it is even clearer just how desperately we need this discussion after the Senate voted down four possible bills from both sides of the aisle prompting a 26-hour-long protest by House Democrats, during which another four shootings occurred. Something has got to give. We need your support.
Suggestions for Future Discussions
The Senate is not the only place I have witnessed resistance this week. Many people, including myself, have taken to social media to discuss the issues at hand. We have been met with untenable responses from a body of people who refuse to engage any conversation about gun regulation. Indefensible positions include, for instance, what some gun enthusiasts have put forward as their only argument: “the Second Amendment says so!”, stated with no further support. Others posted videos like this one to persuade America to trust the “good guy,” even though it involves a gun not typically carried day-to-day (and sounds automatic to my untrained ears and the ears of a few of my gun-toting friends). Conspiracy theorists claimed there is no possible way Mateen could have gotten almost 300 rounds into the club (to which I respond with this video). And then there are responses that are illogical: Someone stated that “AR-15 types are not more powerful than hand guns” then turned around in the same post to claim he wants something “better” to protect his home, which is why many people want access to those types — defeating his own argument, not making sense. Unsound reasoning aside, trauma surgeons disagree, but I digress. To me, the worst are the many people opposing rational questions under the guise of American patriotism.
Rhetoric like this does not constitute conversation. Responses like these are not arguments but reactions, uncensored in thought, emotion, and conviction. All components are valuable for their honesty of expression, but potential for real conversation is obstructed, hidden behind those same untempered thoughts, emotions, and convictions that are at best, self-rendered blindness and at worst, intentional blockades to further this vital discussion. Reactions like this have all the cooperation of the clap of a judge’s gavel or the slamming of an invisible door.
“They already do background checks.” Once again, I say to you, it’s not enough. Those background checks are not very detailed, sometimes fail, and don’t prevent people who have been investigated by the FBI from obtaining deadly weapons and multiple rounds of ammunition. Omar Mateen was investigated twice and was cleared because there wasn’t enough evidence of terrorist ties. There could be so many other things we could do. There could be longer waiting periods (especially considering the default processing has proven to be problematic). There could be better background checks (which would likely take longer anyway). There could be required training. There could be required licensing. Not just for the right to carry, but to own and operate. There could be required insurance. This image sums up my thoughts nicely.
While psychological evaluations may not be constitutional, surely there are other mental and physical health options we can explore. We could have voluntary personal disclosures like we do on job applications. Maybe require professional and personal references? I don’t know. We don’t know.
What can we do?
Because of the Dickey Amendment, the Center for Disease Control has not been financially able to conduct thorough research on gun violence. The American Medical Association, among others, have declared gun violence “a public health crisis,” and are calling for more research and funding for said research. We don’t know how many people who aren’t allowed to operate a vehicle due to medical restrictions are able to legally purchase firearms. We don’t know how many people with diagnosed mental disabilities purchase guns.
Not only has President Obama, who you may or may not like, attempted to discuss further regulations with Congress and been shot down (inappropriate pun intended) multiple times, but they have repeatedly blocked valuable research funding that could possibly lead us to tangible, factual answers to our issues. It appears there is some effort to work together with what has been deemed the “No fly, no buy” bill, but I have strong doubts of it ever reaching success. Regardless of efforts to impede suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, this bill would not inhibit other violent American citizens from purchasing new guns. The Supreme Court decided yesterday to bar people with a history of domestic violence from obtaining firearms, but even this does not impede all violent criminals from legally purchasing guns. As it stands, the current background checks only prevent purchases to persons with prior convictions of a crime deserving of more than one year of imprisonment, a term not often sentenced to domestic abusers, violent misdemeanors, or minor assault cases.
I realize we need to discuss mental healthcare as well, but at the moment, I am focusing on firearms because there are plenty of people suffering from disabilities like bipolar disorder or clinical depression who will go undiagnosed. Some of them will deny any troubles they may have, thanks in part to the stigma against mental illness that is still heavily prevalent in America. Some will have been raised to believe that mental illness is a myth. Some will have full awareness of their conditions but will not have healthcare that covers psychiatric or psychological care. Those people may not have access to mental healthcare. They still have access to guns.
Speak up!
Again, what can we do? At this moment, I can only offer two constructive answers: educate and compromise. If our nation wants any progress in preventing abhorrent acts of violence with guns without restricting the rights of responsible gun owners, we must have this discussion. We need to do it calmly, with facts, evidence, and kindness toward one another. We need to brainstorm together. We need to foster good conversations instead of squashing challenging topics at the source. Articles like this are extremely informative to those who take the time to read them, but are unfortunately aggressive and might not further the discussion. Articles like this are promoting some aspects of change while using the “where there’s a will” argument, which, like the “good guy” is not productive conversation.
Take your ideas to your local government. Post them online. Sign petitions and send letters to the White House. Avoid transferring blame. Participate in studies nationwide. Promote responsible gun ownership locally and nationally. Discuss possibilities you might think of that I haven’t. Share this article, by all means, but please don’t stop there.
Demand the Dickey Amendment be repealed.
Challenge the default proceed rules until better records are kept.
Most importantly, keep this discussion alive. Do not forget about it or actively do nothing because the hype and outrage of the most recent tragedy has deflated. Utilize your opinion as a “good guy” to provide some real, positive change. Demand change. Demand to be heard and do it frequently.
Please share your letters to government officials in the comments below if you have sent any. Your ideas may be different (or more eloquently composed) than mine or others who may share. Having many options to send would be a great motivator for more people to participate. Instead of dividing each other, we need to work together.
Helpful links
Petition: Repeal the Dickey Amendment
