Gun Control?

Gun control is once again a very lively topic in America. Last week, another tragic shooting occurred with many innocent victims who did not deserve to die such a tragic and pre-mature death. This shooting has sparked thousands of high school students across the nation to press for more gun control measures. Measures that many believe will help curtail the tragic number of shootings that we see in this country. Although, I greatly respect the teens and their passion for the issue (it's nice to see teens politically involved and not eating Tide pods). However, this debate is nothing new. Unfortunately, instead of coming together to try and figure out a rational solution to this problem, both parties will find a way to over dramatize this and ensure that little to no action will be taken. But here are a few thoughts that I have on the issue. 

To my friends on the Right,

I ask the following question, "When is the right time to talk about gun violence in America?" We must admit that there is a problem before we can talk about a solution to that problem. Many on the right cry for increased border security after a tragedy in which an illegal immigrant kills a US citizen, or for enhanced vetting after an attack by a professing Muslim. So why is after a mass shooting the wrong time to talk about gun violence? In two months, after many have all but forgotten about this tragedy, will that be the right time to talk? I dare say that if the topic is brought up, the Right will be less likely to talk about the issue than they are today.

To my friends on the Left,

Gun control in America is simply different than it is in any other country. America is unique is several different manners. Unlike any other country, America has a long and cherished history of gun ownership, with that right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. An outright ban on firearms would be a direct assault on the Constitution. The path to eliminating the 2nd Amendment is nearly impossible. There's no way that 3/4 of the states would vote to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, whether you like it or not, many Americans will continue to own firearms.

America is also unique in the amount of guns its people possess. Americans collectively own approximately 300 million guns. No amount of gun confiscation could ever eliminate guns from American households. Also, placing bans on "assault rifles" is not feasible for the same reasons. It would take a massive military directive to confiscate all of these weapons, which is not going to happen without massive bloodshed. Whether you like it or not, guns are here to stay, and they are an integral part of many American's lives.

Finally, if you wish to take appropriate and needed actions towards effective gun control measures, please stop sensationalizing everything when it comes to guns. AR-15s just look cool; someone can kill just as many or more people with a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle. I would even suggest that you go out and fire one, it's quite enjoyable for recreation.

To my friends on both sides of the aisle,

I am firm defender of the Constitution. It was what makes our country unique; and quite honestly, better than every other country on this planet. The right to bear arms is part of that Constitution and deserves to be defended. However, most of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are not absolute rights. Each right has limitations placed on it. For example, through the First Amendment, I have the freedom of speech. However, that freedom does not give me the right to lie and publicly defame you, that is called slander and is not permitted. By the First Amendment, I also have the freedom of religion. However, I do not have the right to commit polygamy or sacrifice animals, even if my religion requires that I do so. Most of our cherished rights and freedoms come with limitations. The same is true regarding the Second Amendment, there can be limitations placed on that right that does not negate or diminish that right.

My solution,

My solution takes a bit of explanation for this issue is complex. I have done extensive research on the issue and I can say that there are legitimate cases on both sides. And that statistics really don't give definitive answers one way or another. With that being said, I am for enhanced "gun control" laws, with certain limitations. Remember, gun control, does not mean gun confiscation. Nor does passing some common sense reforms put us on a slippery slope to a Communistic dictatorship. In case you weren't reading, gun confiscation is never going to happen in America, or at least not anytime in the next few centuries.

Here are the reforms that I support for enhanced gun control:

1. Enhanced background screening and extended waiting period for purchase of a firearm.

Suicides outnumber homicides in America by 200%. That means that twice the amount of people commit suicide each year than the number of people who are killed by other Americans.
Suicide rate in America are steadily on the rise. In 2014, over 42,000 Americans ended their own lives. This is a travesty that is not talked about enough in the gun control argument. About 50% of suicides in America are committed using a gun. A gun is a very easy tool to use to commit suicide. It is quick, painless, and provides a nearly certain death. Very few people survive a suicide attempt of a gunshot to the head. Guns are used in suicide attempts only about 6-7% of the time; however, they are responsible for over 50% of all successful suicide attempts. Suicide is a mental health issue. We need to do better at curtailing this. Therefore, enhanced measures need to be taken to ensure that mentally ill people do not have access to firearms.

2. Mandatory safety courses and competency requirements.

When I was 15, I got my hunting license. In order to get my hunting license, I had to pass a competency test. Not only did I have a written test that I had to pass; but I also had to display competency with several different kinds of firearms. Why should that requirement change when I only want to purchase a gun? Similarly, a few months later, I also had to pass a written test and display my competency to operate a motor vehicle. (Side note, if driving a car is a privilege, than walking down the street or riding a bike is also a privilege. You have the freedom to move about freely in this country. A car is a means to accomplish that freedom. Therefore, driving a car is not a privilege.) Why should we not display competency to own and operate a firearm? There are hundreds of deaths each year due to accidents with firearms. I'm willing to take a test to show my competency to own a firearm if it means that someone else may live.

3. Banning bump stocks and other such devices.

I highly commend President Trump for his stance on this issue. Having a device that modifies a weapon to fire 400-800 rounds a minute, makes that device usable for one thing - mass killing.

Do I think that these measures will eliminate all shootings? Absolutely not. But although we may not be able to save all lives, we should seek measures that will save some lives. If a slight inconvenience to me means that my neighbor won't die tomorrow, then I support it 100%. Human life is too valuable to waste. 

I'm Right! You're Wrong! Any Questions?

Catchy title, I know.

But unfortunately, this seems to be the pervading mindset among most Americans these days. We seem to refuse to even think that there might be some truth to what those who disagree with us are saying. We've made our colorful world strictly black and white.

Imagine that you're standing face to face with me. I hold up a twenty dollar bill, and a third person asks us what we see. I start by saying that I see I picture of Andrew Jackson, I see "Federal Reserve Note", and I see the seal of the Treasury Department. As I am about to continue describing what I see, you start blurting out that I'm wrong. You don't see any of what I'm seeing. You see a picture of the White House; you see the words "In God We Trust"; you don't see anything about the seal of the Treasury. As you're raising your voice, I start raising my voice and getting defensive. I begin saying that you are wrong and what I'm seeing is correct. By now, as you see this illustration in your head, you know that we're both right, we're just viewing the same thing from a different perspective. But we're both adamant about our positions, because we're only trying to see it from our perspective. Welcome to political arguments, 21st Century edition.

So what's the point? Are you saying that two people who see something completely different could both be right? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Even when it comes to politics? Especially when it comes to politics.

Pick up your jaw from off of the floor and let me explain a little bit through a few examples.

Lets talk a little about "Fake News":

Question 1: Is there a large segment of the media that is opposed to Trump? Yes there are.

Question 2: Does Trump do some incredibly stupid and irresponsible things? Of course he does. Just look at the firing of Comey debacle. White House said the firing had nothing to do with Russia investigation. Trump says the next day that it had to do with Russia. I honestly feel bad for Priebus and Spicer sometimes. Whether or not Trump or his campaign is guilty of any collusion with Russia, you've got to admit that the timing of this and the explanations of it were incompetent at best and obstructionist at worst.

Question 3: Are there some in the media who are so enamored with Trump that they think that his farts smell like exquisite French potpourri? Yes. Listen to Hannity for a few minutes and you'll see what I mean. (Ok, that might have been a slight overstatement, but Hannity has seriously lost it when it comes to Trump. If you want some fake news, just look at Hannity's refusal to drop the conspiracy about Seth Rich, even after the family asked him to stop. Hannity was also a huge birther back in 2012. Fake News. Very bad. Wrong. Sad.)

So is it entirely possible that many in the media have published negative stories about Trump AND Trump has done some and said some extremely ill-advised and straight-up dumb things? The answer is YES.

So what does all of this have to do with us? What's the point?

We need to start looking at things objectively, and not subjectively. We need to read with the intent to find the truth. We need to understand that my truth and your truth just might both be true. Remember the example of the twenty dollar bill? Both were right, but both failed to see the other point of view.

The Apostle Paul told the church of Ephesus to walk "circumspectly, not as fools". Synonyms of circumspect include "prudent" and "cautious". That means we're supposed to examine things completely before we jump to conclusions. Circumspectly carries the connotation that we are to "walk around" an issue before we come to a conclusion; not like the fools who jump right in.

Lord Byron, the great British poet once said, "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Don't be a slave.

Snowflakes, Snowballs, and the Coming Avalanche

I have a problem with the term 'Snowflake'. I really don't like it. And I don't say that because I have been accused of being a snowflake. I've been excused of much worse this past year. (Trust me, try holding a moderate position on anything politically nowadays and you will be hated by both sides of the aisle. Apparently, you're a Democrat Socialist if you are concerned about Russian interference in our election, and a Republican Fascist if you think that Hillary Clinton was just as bad a choice for President as was Donald Trump... Rant over) The reason that I have a problem with the term "Snowflake' is simple. I hate the term because it exists only as a way to make illegitimate the concerns of those we disagree with. The term has gotten out of hand. It no longer applies to those to whom it belongs (come on, your candidate lost, you don't need to take the next day off school), but has been used to attempt to smear anyone who does not agree exactly with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or the modern-day 'Conservative' movement. This is very unsettling to me. 

Millennials are very passionate about our causes. We like to be apart of something that is trying to accomplish good, and we like to be with others when we do it. We are the most educated generation; and as such, we're more open-minded and try to think critically and objectively. We identify more as 'Independents' than with either political party. Many of our political priorities lie in helping others. We're not a lowlife group of sissies who are afraid of getting dirty or breaking a nail or sweating when we're not at the gym who believe that the world should be handed to us. (Another side note, why does my generation get blamed for these sort of things? Did we raise ourselves? Or did the adults in the older generations who were supposed to raise us drop the ball? It's hard to blame the younger generation for doing what we were taught to do. And I'm not talking to you, Mom and Dad) Like it or not, one of the quickest ways to make sure that your words are lost on this younger generation is to mock and belittle us. No one likes to be mocked. Ridiculing this generation will not bring any over to your beliefs. Why does Bernie Sanders have a huge following with millennials? Because he doesn't ridicule us for our beliefs. He believes that we have a legitimate part to play in the governing of our nation. I'm not saying that I agree with policies one bit, but I have a general feeling that he cares greatly about the youth of this country. Millennials will listen to him because they believe he cares about their ideas and their future. Maybe it's time that Conservatives start doing the same thing. 

I say all these thing to make a simple point. Stop ridiculing us with pointless terms because you think we're wrong about something. Although we may be younger than you, many of us are very educated. and we are able to have intelligent conversations. Just because we see things differently than you, doesn't mean that we're wrong, and it also doesn't mean that you're right. Edmund Burke, the great English legal scholar, once said, "The arrogance of age must submit to be taught by youth." So try it, listen to what we have to say, and if we're wrong, show us why we're wrong. Take the time to consider that we might actually be right. Turn off talk-radio for a few days. Dare to see another's point of view. And if you think we're wrong, give us hard evidence to the fact. But above all, for Pete's sake, do not ridicule us for having separate beliefs than you. Trust me, if you only mock and ridicule this generation for having different beliefs than you, all of these 'snowflakes' will form a giant avalanche and the destruction left will be great.