Month: November 2017

It’s not the guns, stupid

The bodies not even cold, already some (examples here and here) are attempting to leverage the memory of the 20+ killed in Texas today to push for more gun control. Not only is this in poor taste, it is not productive.

Devin Kelly, the alleged shooter, was court-martialed and discharged from the military for assaulting his wife and child. Gun control laws already make a domestic violence conviction (battery on a spouse, family member or significant other) a disqualifying offense. It is possible that the military records are not part of the background check system, or that the charge against him was not properly identified as domestic violence, but on the surface it appears that he was not eligible to own a firearm. If so, additional laws will not help; instead, a push for proper enforcement of existing laws would be a better course of action.

However, I doubt that people like Wil Wheaton or Chelsea Handler are concerned with enforcing exiting gun laws.  Instead, based on their posts regarding firearms, I would wager that they are in favor of an outright ban on all firearms. Their position is likely that a complete ban would have prevented this catastrophe. I disagree with such a position, and offer the following to support my case:

1)  People like this shooter want to kill; how is irrelevant. They could have just as easily run these defenseless people over in the parking lot with a rented truck or left a fertilizer and diesel bomb parked outside and leveled the church in its entirety.  It’s hard to stop crazy; they have options other than just firearms. Even a complete ban on guns will not stop people so motivated.

2)  Firearms provide many useful services to the general public, including the ability to defend oneself against attackers who are larger, more numerous, or armed. For example, note that this shooter was engaged as he left the church by an armed citizen; this resulted in the loss of the shooter’s assault rifle as he fled the scene. The actions of this armed civilian likely stopped the attack and prevented additional deaths, and underscores the importance of civilians having the means to defend themselves from such determined and crazed individuals.

3)  Criminals are unlikely to be deterred from such acts by more laws restricting a small subset of their available weapons. If you’re a killer going out to kill people, are you really going to be concerned about the illegal posession of your weapon of choice? Doesn’t murder outweigh a weapons charge?

4)  You simply cannot stop crazy; the best you can do is defend yourself when they arrive. More restrictive gun laws, which will likely be followed by law abiding citizens who are of no risk to anyone, will simply leave the honest citizen unable to defend themselves against the dishonest. What kind of effect do you think this will have on person-to-person violent crimes, such as robbery, rape, carjacking, or home invasions? With a disarmed populace to attack and without fear of reprisal by their victims, I would expect criminals to have a field-day cleaning out the valuables of those who do not have the physical means to defend themselves against a few or more local hoodlums.

Try as you might to denigrate the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens, they do provide a useful service to society. The founders knew this to be true, and it’s why the 2nd Amendment exists in our constitution. Don’t be so quick to judge the 2nd amendment before you consider the positive aspects of having the ability to defend yourself, your family, and your country.

And for gods sake, please stop politicizing these tragic events.

The attack on free speech

Free speech is so important to the existence of a free society that the founders of this country enshrined the right to free speech as our constitution’s 1st amendment. The 1st amendment. Need I say more…?

Unfortunately, there are some in this country who are opposed to free speech. Their opposition to free speech may be rooted in the desire/need to control the thoughts of the general public (or more likely the typical voter) for their own ends. Or perhaps their desire is to see the world work in a way that they sincerely believe is best for all. However, attempts to limit speech in the past have led to suppression of the “opposition”, with dire results. Think not? Ask any WWII survivor who witnessed the suppression of opposition speech by Hitler’s stormtroopers and brown-shirts.

There are those who would argue something different; that in fact what is allowed to be said – rather than that not said at all – is what drives negative results. I would argue otherwise, and make the claim that if other voices are heard (rather than suppressed), in the end saner voices will prevail. In any event, the dilemma in attempting the suppression of “wrong” speech (over allowing competing viewpoints to be heard) is this: who exactly gets to decide what speech is allowed?

This is the dilemma faced by the founders. In their wisdom they decided that it was better for all voices to be heard rather than to trust a government to wield such an enormous power responsibly. I wholeheartedly agree with their assessment.

This has not stopped those who wish to control speech. Realizing that the government cannot limit speech (that pesky 1st amendment again…) they have instead taken to demand (under threat of regulation) that those who hold the means to speak (i.e.: the social media providers) limit the ability to disseminate speech that “they” deem hate speech, or simply speech that is divisive (it’s not like free speech is supposed to air opposing viewpoints or anything). Don’t be fooled; it is simply an end-run around the constitution and poses the same problem as noted before: who decides what speech is allowed?

The framers of our constitution were wise but imperfect people operating in a time very different from our own. However, they made a great effort to lay down a solid foundation upon which to build a modern, successful society. This foundation is enumerated in our constitution and its amendments, and we should be very leery of any attempt by our government to circumvent the same. Don’t fall for the demands to limit some speech via threat of regulation –  it’s just an attempt to gain control over all speech.

And remember – when speech is limited, someone has to decide what is allowed. What do you think will happen when your opposition holds that power?

Yeah – that’s what I think, too.