Poor journalism

I read an article by Mr. Edgar Allen Beem concerning Harry Reid's not putting the assault rifle ban before the senate (Read full article here).  I responded with the following to the author.  As of this writing,  I'm including it here for your review.  I have not had a response.   

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

I read your article carefully and found it lacking in both logic and understanding.

I commend you for not misusing the word "clip" as so many of your fellow journalists do. I completely understand your position, though I do not agree with it (your position being that guns themselves should be banned for all except, I'm assuming, law enforcement and military).

What I don't understand, is why a journalist who is paid to think, write down those thoughts, then share that writing with others in an attempt to convey news and/or ideas, would be so haphazard when it came to law, example, history, and process.

Take for example the nefarious politicos who thwart attempts at campaign reform - they're the ones who write the laws that they create *to be thwarted*. One cannot compare that to a an arms manufacturer that obeys the law, even if the outcome of their compliance is different than the intent of the law - that just speaks to either a) poor legislation or b) nefarious politicos who take money from whatever industry to create laws in that industry's favor. Its actually a function of the corrupt political process rather than the industry targeted by journalists (banking, firearms, insurance, whatever).

Lets also address the 2nd amendment. It actually does, in and of itself, mean that one can own military hardware. That's exactly what civilians owned when it was written. Times have changed and the SCOTUS has said that the amendment can be infringed when the general public safety is at risk, such as public ownership of bombs, fully auto firearms, gas, etc... (1934). There is precedent to support a ban on other weapons (such as banning all semi-auto firearms), but I believe that this would create a true infringement for the 2nd amendment that goes against the spirit of the law that SCOTUS would not support.

As to Mr. Reid not putting it to a vote - I agree with you. Just because something *won't* pass, doesn't mean it shouldn't be voted on. I would suggest we have a vote to repeal the National Firearms Act - it would never pass but it would be nice to piss off the liberals. Does that sound like an effective use of our gridlocked congress? Its one thing to be upset that your law isn't voted on, its another entirely to suggest that it should be voted on solely for the purpose of giving the finger to a segment of the population.

Now, lets consider how the pro-gun folks dealt with the anti-gun rage at "assault rifles". They defended the anti-gun attack specifically on "assault rifles" because the bullets that assault rifles fire are, for all intents and purposes, the same bullets that any other gun fires. If the anti-gun folks are going to target a type of weapon, one *should* expect that those in support of that weapon will defend it based on the merits of the argument (of which there were few). Since assault rifles have actually contributed very little to the overall gun violence deaths in the US, and the anti-gun folks target that weapon, then it stands to reason that deaths from other weapons (including non-firearm) is less significant and those who die from them are less important. By targeting only assault rifles, the anti-gun people are minimizing the importance of violence in our country in favor of mass killings.

Also, the size of the magazine is largely unimportant for the purposes of a perpetrator.  Its been proven over and over that someone who goes on a spree will bring whatever ammo and/or magazines that they need to accomplish their goal.   Reloading is too fast and easy to make magazine size a deterrent of any type.   However, it will prevent someone who *could* stop a bad guy from doing so because, as a rule, those who have legal weapons (and carry them legally) don't know if or when they'll be in a firefight, nor the scale of that fight.  They can only prepare for what *they* believe is reasonable.

Now - here's where it gets ugly

To pass a law that makes one "feel better", but that flies in the face of The Constitution (pick your amendment), is to (by definition) reduce our freedoms and liberties with no discernible positive result. Lets not quibble about laws that are already on the books, about how they currently aren't being enforced as they should be, about how repeat violent offenders are let back into society, the list goes on. But lets be clear about passing laws that "feel good" that are potentially unconstitutional. The Constitution is there to limit the power of government. Any time you infringe on it, we give up more rights to the government. History has proven that this can be detrimental and should only be done with absolute surety that the law is in the people's best interest *and* can be objectively quantified. "Feel good" does not pass that litmus test.

Here's the sickness in America. Its that people believe that they can commit a crime, get slapped on the wrist, and go do it again. Its that the mentally ill are free to roam and kill at will without any reliable method of intervention and/or treatment. Its that an old guy like me *needs* to be armed because young thugs will harm me (its happened). Its that women need protection from rapists. Its because we cannot depend on the government to protect us.

Until we address the issue of violence in America, the issue of "gun violence" is completely moot.

Do you have the right to feel safe?

This gun control debate has really polarized the nation.   So many people want the guns gone.   So many people want the guns here.   Who's right and who's wrong.... and more to the point, who has the moral right to impose their will on the other?  Isn't that what its really coming down to?

And lets be clear on one point here before we begin.   If you think that the "assault weapons" ban or "high capacity magazine" ban is a good idea because it saves lives, but that you don't support a "total firearm ban" or the abolition of the 2nd Amendment, then you need to examine exactly what you believe.   These weapons and magazines are protected by the 2nd Amendment that you think you support.  The politicians who want these bans don't want to ban assault rifles.  They want to ban all firearms.  If they tell you otherwise, they are lying so that they don't lose votes.  The irony is that you already know they're lying.   If you think its OK to have firearms, but not assault rifles, then you need to educate yourself on exactly what firearms do.   They're all dangerous in the wrong hands.  All of them.  Every single one.  If you think we need to ban assault rifles, then your logical conclusion will have to be that we need to ban all firearms and repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment.   Coming to a different conclusion demonstrates a lack of understanding of both firearms and the law.

Lets look at The Constitution and Bill of Rights.   For those who slept through civics in high school, the bill of rights is the first ten amendments to our constitution.  The Constitution is a document that defines how we run our country.  Laws have to abide by the rules of the constitution in order to be deemed "constitutional".

Here's The Constitution in text format so I don't have to print it here.

So, lets focus first on The Constitution.

Part of Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution focuses on the role of the federal government as it pertains to trade between states.

• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

So, basically, the federal government has the right to create laws where goods from one state are shipped/sold/purchased/etc... in another.  This could give the federal government the right to prevent any arms trafficking (selling of firearms) between states and force each state to manufacture their own firearms.  It can't, however, prevent a state from manufacturing firearms.  Only the state can do that.

Article 5 states that the house and senate can amend The Constitution.   So the framework can be changed as long as there's enough votes.   This isn't passing a law as such, this is modifying the framework for the law.   For example, if the constitution was modified to allow homosexual marriage, then laws would be written concerning any issues that may arise from this protection.    I bring this up because, if those who would remove our firearms were honest (rather than using smoke and mirrors to accomplish their goals), they could repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment and remove our right to bear arms.

Now lets move on to the most quoted amendment these days; the 2nd Amendment.   I also wish to quote a passage from The Declaration of Independence that, I believe, is the precursor to the 2nd Amendment. 

• Declaration of Independence: ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
• Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
• 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some would say that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms applies to The People and some say it applies to the militias.   Doesn't matter.  The Supreme Court has sided with those who interpret it as The People.

Our Founding Fathers recognized that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That's pretty important.  Does my owning a firearm infringe on someone else's right to those unalienable rights?  Does my carrying a firearm infringe upon your right to life when I don't actually take or threaten your life?   Does my ownership of firearms infringe on your pursuit of happiness because you're not happy as long as firearms exist?

Our Founding Fathers also recognized that our own government may someday become so corrupt that we may need to rise up against it; that a vote would no longer change the course of this corruption.  In this eventuality, The People would need to be armed at least as well as the government (in their view).  Now, nobody is advocating nuclear weapons or tanks being sold at Wal-Mart, but the intent of The Founding Fathers is clear - we must be prepared and we must remain vigilant.

In 1934 The National Firearms Act infringed on the 2nd Amendment.   It passed because the type of weaponry available to the public was pretty bad stuff and the federal government said that it put too many people at risk.  Mobsters with machine guns, sawed off shotguns, etc... were shootin' up big cities.   Bonnie and Clyde were robbing banks.   The act included, not just sawed off shotguns and machine guns, but poison gas, grenades, bombs... really bad stuff; the first incarnations of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).  Do I personally agree with it this law?   No.   Does that matter?  No.  The Supreme Court has upheld the infringement as being in the best interest of public safety.   I believe it actually flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment because it weakens our ability to protect ourselves from a government that is armed with these weapons.  But my opinion is only that; my opinion.

Today, there is lots of data supporting both sides of the argument.   There aren't many studies because the government is prohibited from funding studies concerning "gun safety".   There's a reason for this.  The people who want the studies want to ban guns and there is not enough data on the subject to come to a conclusion that isn't heavily weighted in the favor of those who wish to ban guns.   For example, I have a friend who has needed a firearm to protect himself, his property, and his family, on three separate occasions.   No shots were fired, and the police weren't called.    If he had been unarmed, he would not have been able to defend himself against multiple perpetrators and the story may have ended differently; he might have become a statistic in the "victim of violent crime" column.   So since there was no record of the event, how can it be taken into account when doing a study on "gun safety" and the value of firearms for citizens?  Short answer, it can't.

There is, however, a lot of data concerning "violent crime".  In the U.S., violent crime includes a lot of crime with guns - and a lot without.   People who would feel safer if we were unarmed aren't interested in this data though.   They're interested in what they see on the news.  Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, etc...  They're interested in those criminals who have guns and what it means to their feeling of safety and security when those criminals are shooting other people.   The argument goes that if we confiscate guns, then nobody will be able to shoot anybody else; they will feel safer.

This is the problem with the debate.   People cloak themselves in the data sets of their choosing to support their feeling of safety - whether that safety is to carry a firearm or to ban them.   For example, roughly 30,000 people will be killed by firearms this year in the U.S.   That is a scary number.... no matter how you look at it.   It makes you want to ban guns to save 30,000 lives!   However, half of those are suicides.  Does it make you feel safer to ban guns to prevent suicide?  That makes no sense.  If you're trying to save lives, then treat the victim before he/she is suicidal.  Preventing someone from killing themselves with a weapon won't make you safer, unless you're contemplating suicide, then maybe you should seek help rather than pull the trigger... or swallow the pills... or jump off that bridge; my point being that lumping suicides into the "gun violence" metric is disingenuous.  So how many lives are saved each year with firearms.  We don't know.   Maybe its none.  Maybe its 2,000,000.   If the number of lives saved is greater than the number of lives lost, then shouldn't we be armed?   The question itself can't be answered because there is not enough data to support the hypothesis either way.

Since there is no complete and reliable method of accounting, any data used to prove the point either way will be incomplete and therefore the conclusion will be flawed.   Either way.   So, baring actual data that supports either stance, what is our course of action?   Some would say that because they would feel safer without guns, that all guns should be banned.   However,  feeling safer and being safer are not always the same thing.   Think of the child hiding in a closet during a house fire.  Or the child who's afraid of the monster under the bed.   In both cases the feeling of fear and security are completely misplaced.

Since we cannot rely on our feeling of security to protect us, we will rely on the law.  Currently, the law is that, supported by The Constitution, we may keep and bear arms.   There is a massive effort to make firearms illegal.  This is led by people who are afraid of the monster under the bed; that somehow, if we get rid of the bed, the monster will be effectively dealt with.   One could argue that those who carry weapons are like the child hiding in the closet during a house fire; that they feel protected when in fact they are in great danger.

My point in all this is simple.   This debate is all about fear and feelings; not about facts.   

It will do no good to attempt to argue a gun owner into believing that they will be safer without a firearm.  It will do no good to attempt to argue an anti-gun advocate into believing that they will be safer with a gun (or in the proximity of someone with a gun).   The only way to convince people is to educate the fear from them. In my case, its to take my anti-gun friends to the range and teach them.   Let them see that firearms are tools and not inherently evil.   Teach them that there is a safe way to handle, store, and use firearms.  Teach them that criminals want soft targets; people who will not oppose or threaten them.  Teach them that criminals don't care if the victim lives or dies.  Teach them that they are responsible for their own safety.   If they choose to be a soft target, that this is their choice.   If I choose to defend myself, that it is my choice.

Because The Constitution says that I have the right to keep and bear arms, then I have that right regardless of others' feelings until such time as the criminals win and have these firearms banned.  After all, who stands to gain the most from a ban?   Those who would take advantage from the defenseless.