Usually, when people look at the anti-gun media, it’s easy to just focus on the national media. After all, they’re the ones who reach millions of people–yes, even CNN–and feel like they make life more difficult by pushing a narrative based on emotion rather than facts.
However, we need to remember that the narrative isn’t just pushed at one point. It’s all up and down the media line, from the “big boys” like Time and NBC to local newspapers.
They push an anti-gun line that starts reasonable enough and goes off the rails soon enough.
Gun control is an extremely polarizing issue and there appears to be no middle ground on either side of the question. The NRA opposes any and all new laws governing firearms while their most extreme opponents support outright bans on certain types and/or all firearms for civilian use.
At the age of 8 years, I inherited my father’s Red Ryder BB-gun just like the one Ralphie wanted in “A Christmas Story.” When I turned 12, I was old enough to legally go hunting in the presence of an adult in Pennsylvania and attended a voluntary hunter safety course which reinforced the safety rules laid down by my father when he gave me the BB-gun. Since then I have been an avid hunter and collector of firearms, a member of local sportsman clubs, and a member of the NRA. It’s time for both sides of the gun control arguments to give a little and adopt a common sense approach to the issue.
I have identified five areas that if acted upon would cause a dramatic decrease in crimes involving the use of a firearm:
And we can trust him because he’s a hunter and says he’s a member of the NRA, which I’m seeing a lot of people say to try and shield them from some degree of criticism.
Regardless, though, the writer breaks his reasoning down for yeah of his five areas, but then relists them. He doesn’t break new ground with any of them, so there’s really no reason to address each and every one of his arguments or anything.
Here are his five areas:
1) Aggressive law enforcement of straw purchases.
2) Mandate federal firearm safe storage laws.
3) Require firearm safety education prior to any gun purchase
4) Implement universal background check for all firearm transfers
5) Hold firearm owners civilly and criminally responsible for the use and safekeeping of their firearm.
Now, aggressive law enforcement of straw purchases is fine. Those are already illegal and enforcing the law more vigorously won’t impede any lawful gun owner from enjoying their gun rights.
After that, though, what we have is literal nonsense.
Mandatory storage laws aren’t “safe storage” of anything. Guns that are required to be locked away may keep some people safe, sure, but they’ll put other people at risk because they can’t access them when needed.
Requiring education is ridiculous since we don’t require education before acting upon any other constitutional right. Further, how many people have sat through years of school without the slightest clue how to do even some of the most rudimentary tasks? Hell, look at your feed on Facebook. If 13 years of educating people on the English language wasn’t enough, what the hell is some firearm safety class going to do if they’re forced to go through the motions to obtain a firearm?
While I agree it’s important, making it a requirement for adults just insures people are going to go through the motions so they can get their guns, then forget everything else.
Further, it’s not the law-abiding citizens who are the problem in the first place.
Universal background checks sound all fine and good, but they’ve been defeated by voters in every state that put them on the ballot. That’s because it’s an idea that sounds good, but when people realize it means they can’t buy or sell guns with their buddies, it falls apart. Especially since anyone with half a brain should be able to recognize that the people who are a problem when it comes to guns aren’t going to suddenly undergo background checks.
That brings us to the stupidest idea ever. The idea that you or I should be liable if someone gets hold of our gun and misuses it. Do we hold people accountable when their car gets stolen and used in a way that results in the loss of human life? No, nor do we do that with literally any other thing. Why should guns be treated differently?
Yet these are the ideas that tend to infect local publications just as much as the larger outlets. This is someone who thinks these are good ideas, and countering them takes a whole lot more space than most have available in their letters to the editor. I can’t help but think that’s by design. They don’t want their ideas refuted, only accepted.
Don’t fall for it.