Let’s get Hasty: It was Never about Guns
Published December 2015
I’ll tell you the reason America is falling apart. I’ll tell you the reason we can’t agree on anything. It’s not guns. It’s not abortion. It’s not the social issues. It’s not who #matters more. It’s not about Christianity. America has a different problem, these are just outward manifestations of it.
This week has added another brutal reminder that evil exists in the world; that without provocation, there are people out there who will willingly and gleefully take innocent lives. San Bernardino (and America) needlessly lost 14 people to mindless cowards parading around with guns. Let’s be clear- these attackers didn’t happen upon those weapons or make their decisions that day at random. They PURPOSEFULLY pulled the trigger and slaughtered husbands, fathers, wives, and mothers. They killed Latinos, African Americans, white people, straight, gay, it didn’t matter. Their intention was to take lives and to tear America apart. Did it work?
Let’s talk about guns now. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say there are only three options: Less Guns, More Guns, Do Nothing.
Option #1- Less Guns
First off, researching this is harder than making my cat take a bath. I now understand why Americans are so divided on issues that should have a clear, logical answer. I’ve been hearing all week about Australia’s gun ban. I dare you to type in “Australia Gun Ban 1996” in Google. If you’re lazy, this is what it gave me on the front page:
Let’s see what a quick search would tell Americans who Googled this.
- The Washington Post reports that “firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.” Read the study used here.
- Injury Prevention concluded that “Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.”
- PolicyMic had very little data or evidence involved, but provided anecdotes like “A little more than 19 years ago, in the aftermath of one of the worst massacres in Australia’s history, its government passed a robust series of new gun laws called the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program. The strict controls mandated by the NFA effectively banned the possession of a range of deadly weapons. In 12 days, the Australians achieved what gun control advocates in the United States have failed at for decades.”
- FactCheck gives this answer: “This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows…” “Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law.”
- TIME offers “Howard argued the tougher laws would make Australia safer. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country’s gun-related death rates.” WHAT?!
“…by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer “is there in black and white,” she says. “The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.”
- The article in NationalReview is titled “Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work — And it Wouldn’t Work in America.”
I think I’ll go give my cat a bath now.
These are the most authoritative articles/sites that Google can come up with. If Americans search even a simple term, they are blasted with graphics, stories, charts, and a lot of “facts”. Of course, this isn’t Google’s fault. Its search algorithm simply shows what it deems to be important for the searcher, and rightly so. My problem with this is-Americans have no freaking idea what information to trust.
Each of these websites use data to support their claims. From scientists. If they can’t agree, how are we supposed to? Maybe that’s the point. We have to be willing to accept that there isn’t a perfect answer to every situation- and not attack others for not seeing things the way you do.
But follow me here. We have to think about ramifications of such a ban. Australia reportedly rounded up over 650,00 guns following the ban, which was in response to the Port Arthur Massacre. Let’s have a look at what they did.
“The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a “genuine need” for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course.” (read here)
According to Justin Peters, a Slate correspondent estimates that there are at least 3.2 million AR-15 rifles in America alone. This is just one type of gun used to commit these types of crimes. How much would it cost to buy back these and other similar guns? Billions.
Worth it? Maybe. It’s not a simple answer, but it definitely shows the complexity of the issue.
Option #2- More Guns
There aren’t a lot of people rooting for this one. Even the most “gun-ho” conservatives don’t necessarily want more guns. They simply want guns in the hands of the “right” people. This includes training and arming school teachers, people in business, and others in areas of vulnerability. The meat of the argument revolves around the idea that “good guys with guns” are ALWAYS the ones stopping the shootings in the end- the Police. The idea is that if there are more expertly trained civilians out there, these “bad guys with guns” can be stopped before inflicting heavy damage. This is also a complicated stance, but deserves some attention.
-Said No One Ever.
Here’s some questions I have regarding the training and placement of said “good guys”.
- Who pays for the training? The individual? While there might be quite a few that are up for that idea, it might be hard to convince others. Meanwhile, the government’s debt ceiling is vaulted into the sky.
- Should it be mandatory? Can you imagine placing guns in every single school in America? How far does it go? Metal detectors? Pat downs?
- How much training? I certainly don’t want my child learning from someone who hasn’t been THOROUGHLY trained with firearms.
Many are worried that the mental stability of the person holding the weapon could change, creating a whole new problem in itself. Regular mandatory checkups would be a must if this plan were to go forward.
Cost? Billions
Option #3- Do Nothing
One of the hardest things for humans is to not REACT. We seem to have an insatiable need to fix the supposed injustice that has taken place, on a small scale or a large one. Think of how entertaining revenge movies are. There’s a reason- it’s hardwired into us.
Can we accept that there might not be a perfect answer to this issue? Our first instinct is to take away the thing that is killing the innocents. If it could be fully prevented this way, it would have happened long ago, no doubt. The problem isn’t the way it happens, though.
The Real Problem-
We often overlook what is right for that which fits our ideology. The problem with this country is a problem that individuals face on a daily basis. When unchecked, it infects communities, organizations, and entire societies. It is a disease of the heart.
The real problem is Pride.
I’m not talking about telling your kid after a football game, “I’m proud of you, son!” I’m talking about the stupid, nonsensical pride that ruins individuals and societies. I’m talking about the stubbornness that destroys relationships and worships only the self. I’m talking about the kind of Pride the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung says is “ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune.”
We all feel it.
I think of the divisions in this country, and my first reaction is anger, surprisingly. We have a wonderful country, full of opportunities and blessings.
And this is what it has come to.
I’m angry that a presidential candidate can’t think of a greater enemy than an opposing political party. I’m angry that both parties are starving for leadership, only to be led astray by captains of fame and fortune, not the humble, empathetic, resolute leaders that America needs, and deserves.
So how about setting aside meaningless differences and coming together for America? How about we engage in meaningful discussions instead of flaming rhetoric, hateful comments, and social media mob justice?
Pride. That’s the answer.
And I’m not proud to say it.
