Gun Control Debate: My Thoughts Regarding Systemic Issues

Today I wrote an article for PolicyMic on the topic of shooting rampages in schools verses stabbing rampages. It was met with highly divisive opinions from both sides, hailed as an attempt at satire or something blatantly obvious. Yes, my matter-of-fact outline of why knives do not stack up against a gun in terms of an effective weapon is pseudo-Colbert, but my intent with writing the article was well intended. This is not an apology, nor is it back pedaling. It is just an explanation of my perspective as I see the world. Please read the article on PolicyMic and check out some of the comments, so that the context of my response below can be properly framed. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well obviously knives are not as deadly as guns. This is not supposed to be some major revelation. A gun is not just like any other weapon - firearms are something extraordinary. The Founding Fathers recognized this, hell, they gave firearms its own amendment - right after speech, religion, and press.

So when the media makes comparisons in terms of mass rampages, sure common features can be analyzed. But to jump and say rampages with knives are just as bad as rampages with a firearm; and therefore common sense measures in regards to gun control, like keeping guns away from the mentally unstable and to require universal background checks, are useless because knife attacks would still happen in lieu of mass shootings, well that is just BS. And this is a common claim from firearms advocates and detractors of gun control.

I have made numerous posts regarding gun control - on Facebook and here on my blog. I have done my research. But I've never really given insight as to my true feelings in regards to the issue of gun control. There's ignorance on both the right and the left, liberals and conservatives alike. I don't think that average Joe Public with no prior experience with firearms should be able to buy a Mk 48 LMG with no questions asked, just by virtue of being American. On the same note, a high capacity magazine is not a one time use item, nor is an "under-barrel rocket launcher" a real thing. I've consistently applied disclaimers to my gun control related posts, but they go ignored - perhaps in favor of vitriolic rhetoric, or a simple reaction from the headline.

It is safe to say that so far my ventures into the gun control debate are experimental and sociological in scope. I have approached it from a precarious perspective, but not from the position of policy prescription. Ultimately would I like the world and America to be a place where no one has the need to use a firearm against a fellow human being? Yes. Is that anywhere near the reality that we live in? No. Do statistics show that the proliferation of gun ownership contribute to a drop in violent crime? Yes. But do I think that the NRA pressures and holds hostage those in public office who want to try and implement positive reforms? Absolutely.

Simply claiming to enforce the laws on the books rings a bit hollow, because the apparatuses to enforce such laws are either ineffective or simply lack a confirmed director. (Yes, I am looking at you ATF). Access to mental health resources needs to be expanded. The underpinning issues of why people feel compelled to commit armed robbery or harm another human being have to be addressed as a matter of public health. Yes, this does mean the war on drugs does need to be reexamined with intense scrutiny. But to then say these types of reforms and new approaches should not also be applied or investigated when it comes to the issue of gun control is disingenuous. It is true that monocausal answers always fall because they fail to incorporate numerous important factors and variables. Likewise, excluding a major part of the issue also dooms progress when it comes to reducing gun violence and the proliferation of firearms into the arms of criminals. What we are doing now is not working. Something has to be done.

Thanks,
N.K.

The Details are in the Design

F1 Race Car and a 4 Door Sedan
Both with a Rear Spoiler

Everyone draws on comparisons between guns and cars when talking about gun control, especially when discussing so called 'Assault Weapons.' The common mantra is 'it's the driver at fault in a car crash, so why ban the vehicle?' The logic is that the user of either the gun or the car should be punished or held responsible, so restricting access to the tool used to do the harm is arbitrary and wrong.

Well, although many people in the U.S. drive compact cars with small 4-cylinder engines, they buy 'Sport' packages for their cars, attach wings or spoilers to their cars, or modify their engines with performance parts. This is done to emulate REAL race cars used by trained professionals on a closed course. Although the core of the car is the same, they are used with two separate and distinct mentalities and thus alter the intent with which their car will be used - switching from Sunday driver to the Fast and the Furious. Nobody needs to go 0-60 in 5 seconds when the speed limit is 25 to 40 mph and the drive to work is not a trial run in the Indy 500.

So why is this comparison overlooked in the analogy? The cosmetic additions to a rifle emulate the modifications used by trained soldiers for the purpose of a battlefield in a theater of war. The shooter is not going into battle, so why use a weapon that looks like it belongs in a battlefield? It is the mentality of the weapon that shifts. This is because of the gun culture and the pornographization of war. So while the addition of an adjustable stock, a barrel shroud, muzzle brake, or a pistol grip does not fundamentally alter a rifle in a physical or mechanical sense, the aura and mentality attached to the weapon are.

A Classic Hunting Rifle [top] and the FN SCAR Mk 17 [bottom]

The two rifles above are designed for two different and specific purposes. The top gun is a classic hunting rifle and the bottom gun is the FN SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) designed for USSOCOM. They are both chambered for the same round, the 7.62 NATO [military] or the .308 Winchester [civilian]. The hunting rifle is a no frills weapons, while the SCAR has design components that are specifically purposed for a battlefield in a war zone. Civilians can purchase the SCAR Rifle as as the 'SCAR 17S,' a semi-automatic only version of the SCAR Mk 17. [Link Here]

So here is where the comparison of the driver and shooter come into play. If someone were to engage in an illegal activity with an otherwise legal item, i.e. drive like they are in a race on a city street or robbing a bank or going on a shooting rampage, they would more than likely select a sport type car or an assault weapon type rifle. The performance sought in a car when they are purposed for operating in fast, agile, and quick environment are never realistically needed when lawfully operating a vehicle on a city street. Likewise when a person goes hunting, they are not taking down an armed deer in body armor - and even in home defense, the attack wont be a drawn out siege.

I feel like this aspect of the design difference has been overlooked in the discussion and debate - mostly because the Gun Lobby has stifled the discourse. I'm not saying that these should be banned outright per se, but rather what's the justification? This is not an attack on hobbyists or gun collectors, but rather negligence or abdication of responsibility on the side of gun manufacturers. Could it be because that they are shielded from legal culpability thanks to a 2005 law? [Link Here] If they have a contract with the Military and Department of Defense, why should they use similar products and marketing when selling to private consumers? Capitalism is dictated by the wants of the consumer, but should products be made available without limit? I'm sure that there would be endless lines for people wanting to collect fighter jets and air-to-ground missiles - but that does not justify the ability to sell those to private citizens.

This is not intended to be a critique of car manufacturers or an attack on the Second Amendment. Nor am I attempting to argue that the guns of today pail in comparison to the 'firearms' imagined by the Founding Fathers, and should therefore not fall under the rights of ownership of the Second Amendment. Rather this is just a step towards having the discourse that this country so desperately needs to have.