One of my favorite teachers

In high school, I had a psychology teacher that everyone adored. She was smart, hilarious, crass at times, and a very good teacher. I kept in contact with her even after high school, and sometimes would visit and be introduced to her class long after I had started my company.

All was well until earlier this year… I started a company called HuskyPak, which sells the world’s first sub-$100 bulletproof backpack for students. I was tired of all the legislation that ended in nothing but more restrictions and higher crime. I was tired of statistics being ignored in favor of emotion politics and pseudo-ethics. I didn’t want to fight anymore. I just wanted something as a symbol of solidarity, affordable to the masses.

When talking about gun control on Facebook, I got a comment from this teacher, arguing against my claim with her own points. Fair enough; I responded with my counter argument, complete with facts, statistics on crime, the whole shebang. After a bit of back and forth, she starts a second comment thread on my post, with this:

Uhhm… Okay…

So this teacher is now assuming that “(my) fear precedes a child’s safety”, rather than what my point was, which is that certain gun control laws never have, and never will, actually work. She then calls me selfish for not wanting to relinquish my gun rights (earlier, she argued for a ban on all semi automatic guns, which includes pretty much every modern gun at this point).

To prove that I do care, I responded with this:

To this, she responded:

Mind you, this was one of my favorite teachers in high school. This is someone I had contact with for years; this is someone who I viewed as one of the most influential educators I ever had.

…This is someone who accused me of profiting off the deaths of children, all because I didn’t agree with her politics.

If I have ever been hostile to someone who is pro-gun control, it is because of situations like this, where the other side uses faux-morality to stomp on me.

I’m in no way saying that nobody on my side of gun control does the same. I’m sure there are plenty of anti-gunners who have similar experiences with people in our camp.

For the longest time, I pondered over what the problem could be. My conclusion now is: People, on both sides, who refuse to take facts and formulate them into useful arguments. People who are so emotionally charged over an issue, but are also too damn lazy to do real research.

There are plenty of solid reasons behind gun control, and plenty behind keeping our rights. I happen to agree with the latter, but whoever has an argument for me rooted in reason is welcome to come talk to me.

But if what you’re going to do is assert that I’m some immoral asshole who is profiting off the deaths of children, you can kindly go have fun in Super-Disney-Fun-Flowers-and-Rainbows-Acid-Trip-Ville where your brain lives.

Why are both sides in the gun control debate so hostile towards each other?

I don’t know about hostile, but I quite dislike writing a long, detailed, and fully supported answer and find completely emotional responses that indicate the answer wasn’t even read. Things like, “So you think innocent people dying is ok”, or “How can you support children being murdered?”, or “How can you think your hobby is more important than lives?”. It gets rather tiresome when you put all sorts of work and research into an answer only to have it be ignored and returned with emotional and irrational responses. I have my point of view and it’s based on research that anyone can view and discuss. It seems most of the responses from the other side are opinions not based on anything anyone else can discuss. There is no discussion to be had with an emotion-based opinion. “I feel this way and nothing you say or do can change that” isn’t a very open and productive stance.

From a research perspective, I have read all kinds of studies, reports, and articles and I have found the gun control side often skews the data or draws conclusions that are not in line with the data. For example, the claim that one is “X times more likely to be killed with a firearm in the home than use it to protect one’s life” is based on a few skewed methods. First, one study takes an aggregate risk and applies it to everyone, essentially saying a gang member has the same risk as a suburban housewife when in reality the gang member has an astronomical risk and the housewife has a near zero risk. Second, another study looks at victimization reports and the outcomes of incidents with and without guns present and applies the risk to everyone. This is also flawed because it takes an already risky scenario, mostly domestic violence, and applies it to everyone, even though most people will not experience that scenario, so the risks associated with it are not applicable. Finally, to ascertain how many times a firearm is used in self-defense the FBI justified homicide tally is used, which sits around 300 cases. The main issue with this is most legal self-defense scenarios with a firearm do not result in a fatality. This measure is like stating almost no one in the US speeds while driving based on the number of tickets issued compared to the number of drivers. We all know this is a ridiculous claim. Researchers on the topic of legal self-defense with a gun have estimated between 55,000 and 2.5 million cases in the 1990’s, and when the CDC researched the topic again in 2013 they estimated 500,000 to 3 million cases was the most likely range. That stands in stark contrast with 300 cases and would drastically change the false risk factor cited.

In all of these cases, the distinction is not made between legal ownership and illegal possession. In the case of gang members, it is almost entirely illegal possession. With domestic violence, many cases involve a personal protection order, which in most states makes it illegal for the assailant to possess any weapon. To say legally owning and safely storing a firearm in your home has a significant risk factor is blatantly misleading. Mixing illegal possession (which is linked with willful illegal activity) and legal ownership (categorically involving legal activity) is the only way to come to this conclusion, and applying risk in this way is completely inappropriate. If we used the same method we could find any activity or item to be completely unsafe. This doesn’t even take into account unethical research that is designed with a political agenda before the research even begins, but that’s another topic entirely.

More people than ever get a formal education, but that doesn’t mean one is educated on any given topic. Worse yet, left-leaning outlets rarely use impartial data or add a heavy amount of bias to data. Another example, the Gun Violence Archive, is supposed to be an unbiased data collection hub. It’s tally of mass shootings, in particular, is often quoted. Despite the claims of impartiality, the Gun Violence Archive is highly biased, counting every news and police report including the words, “shooting”, and “gun” and other keywords as a mass shooting. The reports are referenced, but sometimes they are blurry screenshots of tweets or a part of a news story, which are not appropriate references, even when they are legible.

A quick screenshot of today’s results shows the blatant bias in the “mass shooting” tally. Of the 25 entries below, none (zero) meet the definition of a mass shooting. The majority of entries have zero fatalities. Some of the entries in the past have involved airsoft replica guns, squirt guns, or suicides in a school parking lot with no one around and obviously do not meet the definition of a mass shooting. Despite this, the Gun Violence Archive is often cited as an unbiased and accurate count of gun violence, especially mass shootings, when it obviously is not.

Even the cases that do fit the definition of a mass shooting by the numbers are usually not actually a mass shooting as we think of it, but gang activity. This does not meet the definition of motivation set for mass shootings. Is the Gun Violence Archive willfully misleading or just hampered by a limitation of staff and technology? I don’t know, but the way it operates does not lead to accurate and unbiased results.

Mass shootings have been the hot-button topic for a long time, a silver bullet issue to enact additional gun-control restrictions. President Obama has spoken about this topic in the past and mentioned the US accounts for 30% of the world’s mass shootings while having only 5% of the world population. Turns out this was based on completely wrong information found in a paper no one could read using data sets no one could see. Turns out that 30% is actually 3%, yet this false study is the basis for this topic of discussion.

“Here’s an amazing thing, [Lankford] refuses to provide his list of cases, he refuses to explain exactly how he got it. This is not just some normal academic study – President Obama many times cited this study as a source for his claims. I can’t find any other academic research that’s gotten so much worldwide attention,” Lott told Fox News, adding that people across the world heard about the study.

Despite that, the study became go-to research across the media, with the New York Times and CNN frequently citing it. Just this Wednesday, liberal news site Vox referenced a CNN article that cited Lankford’s work.

Study claiming US is home of one-third of mass-shooters worldwide debunked; figure less than 3 percent

But that’s not the only study to skew the figures on the topic,

SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: 235 REPORTED, LESS THAN A DOZEN CONFIRMED

In the case of school shootings, NPR and Child Trends, a nonpartisan research organization, looked into a Department of Education report that found there were 235 school shootings in the 2015-2016 school year.

After reviewing the data and following up with the schools, the researchers were able to confirm only 11 of the incidents.

"When we're talking about such an important and rare event, [this] amount of data error could be very meaningful," Deborah Temkin, a researcher and program director at Child Trends, told NPR.

Gun violence statistics overestimated in 2 reports

So why does it matter that these misleading studies are out there? President Obama himself used this figure multiple times, which shaped the public understanding for years. I doubt the majority of the public regularly fact-checks stats, especially when they come from the President. When one side gets the President to spread blatant falsehoods the other side has every right to be upset people won’t look at the facts for themselves.

If you’re interested in this topic there is a study with actual transparency here: How a Botched Study Fooled the World

One reason some on the pro gun-control side may become so angry is because usually it is an emotional position. When an emotional position is challenged anger is usually the first response, otherwise the position may be eroded. When there is really no foundation in logical and rational points there is no room for logical and rational discussion. I have had civil discussions with people that are pro gun-control that have logical and rational foundations and it has led me to rethink my positions, tie up loose ends, and research certain areas more thoroughly. In each case, it led to a strengthening of my position and a more thorough understanding of the topic, as I’m sure they experienced the same. Unfortunately, most people on this side are not educated on the topic and hold an emotional foundation. If there is no logical foundation there is no room to examine data and reexamine a position; with an emotional position, it is final and binary. Under this paradigm no discussion is acceptable, you either agree or are the enemy.

One reason some on the pro-gun side may become so angry is that their attempts to educate, share their opinion, and have an actual dialog have been shut down by the same misleading slogans and emotional arguments again and again. Looking at the same biased, misleading, and ignorant claims, again and again, doesn't help either. After a while, one just gives up on trying and forms pretty concrete expectations of what will happen. Explaining something over and over with effort only to have your efforts circumvented and ignored in favor of emotional pleas gets tiring very quickly.

Logical arguments can never sway emotional positions. Emotional arguments can never sway logical positions. This is why both sides cannot agree or have a real discussion. If the arguments are the same type there is room for healthy disagreement and both parties can agree to disagree or compromise. Both sides ultimately want the same thing, less violence, and death, but the methods vary widely. I personally feel researching the current situation, taking into account the legal and logistical restraints, is the best way to understand how to improve the situation. Many times some others would say that is being obstructionist and that we should “do something” without having an understanding of what actually happens in the real world or a concrete plan. I prefer my method but to each their own.

Fear and ignorance. I can’t tell you how many Anti-2A people tried to argue with me about our lack of gun laws, when they themselves have no idea what the laws are.

Example from a recent dialogue with a friend:

Her: “I think we should have universal background checks. Too many crazy people can walk into Walmart and buy guns to shoot up the school/club.”

Me: “Well, we already have a background check procedure that runs your fingerprints through databases from your local PD, to the State PD, and then the FBI. Most towns also require at least two references to vouch for your character. And finally you often have to sign a release form giving the State consent to check for your mental health records. And this is a process that every applicant goes through, no matter your race, gender, height, weight, etc..”

Her: “Well, they need to make it stricter then because some crazy people are falling through the cracks”

Me: “Hmm, how exactly would they make it stricter? What else can they possibly do?”

Her: “I don’t know, maybe send a detective to stalk you for a week.”

Me: “In most towns, they usually assign a detective to your case to get necessary background information about you, which includes checking with your references, neighbors, and in some cases, the immediate family you live with.”

Her: “Well, apparently that’s not enough!”

Me: “So what would you suggest then? Since the process seems to be lacking somewhere.”

Her: “I don’t know, but I’d do something.”

At that point, I ended this dialogue because 1) since she isn’t a firearms owner, she has no idea what we have to go through to get approved for purchase permits and the FID card and 2) She has no real, plausible solution to what she thinks is the problem. Typical

You worked so hard for your lifestyle; a giant mansion, a fast car, and a giant pool.

Because your house is too big, people think you should downsize and turn the home into a shelter.

Because your car can triple the speed limit, people think you shouldn't own it, and want to ban it. They've discussed taking it by force.

Kids drown in pools every year, so people think you need to get rid of your pool because it's dangerous to children.

You've never committed a crime in your house nor is it a nuisance to the other homes in the area. The size was affordable, so you bought it. You drive your fast car responsibly and have never received a speeding ticket.

You don't have children and your house is gated and locked, you don't forsee kids drowning in your pool.

These are your rights and freedoms, yet because some idiot thinks your house is too big, it's suggested you get rid of it. Because some idiot sped in their car and killed others in the crash, your car is now dangerous to society, regardless of your pristine driving record. Because an unattentive parent found their child dead in their swimming pool, you are now to blame for simply having a pool.

Does this sound absurd?

I have never used any of my firearms to harm anyone nor commit a crime, yet people think 30 rounds is too large of a capacity, and some guns are unfit for civilian ownership.

I'll discuss firearms with anyone mature enough to hold a conversation.

Edit: Thanks for all of the upvotes and comments.

I can't explain why people are anti-gun and hostile towards me. The examples I mentioned were meant to be ridiculous. No one is going to demand that you downsize your house, nor get rid of a car or pool. When it comes to guns, downsizing collection sizes, magazine capacity, and calibers are the norm. If someone is killed in California with an AR-15, suddenly yours is considered part of the problem even if it's in a safe in Georgia.

The hostility comes from left-wing demands and absurd claims which are not factually supported.

I won't be concerned if you purchase 100 gallons of gas, three dozen donuts, or even two cell phones at once.

Try to purchase 1,000 rounds of ammunition, 20 magazines, or even two guns on the same day and suddenly you're frowned upon for being a “lunatic.”

Earlier this year I was chased down the street by a man threatening to kill me. I had witnessed him running away from his previous assault victim and he decided I was his next target.

At 7:30 AM he chased me for about 2 blocks, hopped the security fence at my apartment complex and attempted to break down my front door, yelling about how I was going to die in my own place.

Once I made it into my apartment I tried calling 911. The problem was I was so sweaty from running that the thumb reader on my brand new Pixel smart phone couldn't read my thumbprint, refused to unlock, and I had to work past the failure to unlock notification to get put in my password while im so hopped up on fight-or-flight hormones I can barely hold still. I know that doesn't sound like much but in a situation where every half-second counts, it's a big deal.

My 9mm, on the other hand, didn't have that problem. It went “click, click”, and luckily for both of us the guy was smart enough to realize I wasn't going to be a victim, so we didn't have to hear it go “boom”.

He was so upset he went around the other side of the apartment complex and punched out the laundry room window.

The police arrived 25 minutes later, I gave them a physical description and they left. The same guy who tried to attack me attacked at least 2 other people that day, I have no idea if he was ever caught.

I will never, ever, rely on a firearm with any kind of electronic reader to function after that experience. It was bad enough that my phone delayed my 911 call. In fact, my phone won't let me put in a pin number until the fingerprint reader has already been tried and failed, which is a terrible design. If I have to use it, my gun has got to work, and adding anything beyond what is required to function adds another layer of complexity that makes it more likely to fail.

Edit: Lots of comments have made suggestions on the phone situation. I've completely shut down the fingerprint reader on my phone so I immediately get access to the emergency call option. The point of the story is that the fingerprint reader on a piece of the latest and greatest tech failed and had to be bypassed. If my handgun was biometrically restricted using that same technology, I would have had to use it as a club.

Edit #2: I've continued to receive comments on this answer regarding how to call 911 without needing to unlock the phone and people have outright called me a liar because of it. I will explain it here in more detail as I have explained it multiple times in the comments. I am aware that on an Android phone, when you swipe past the lock screen to access the keypad to input your pin, there is an Emergency button at the bottom to call 911. The issue is, when I attempted to do that during this event, the phone ignored my swipe commands because it was trying to read my fingerprint. The phone would not register any other inputs while it was also trying to read a fingerprint. After failing to read the fingerprint and denying other inputs, it produced a notification that the reader had failed and I would need to input my pin. Frankly, this answer is old, I am tired of curating it and having people claim I am a liar about one of the worst moments of my life, so I am going to lock the comments.

I believe that the answer to the question “why are people so misinformed on gun control” has a few different dynamics to it.

I’ll answer it very simply: echo chambers.

With the advent of social media, we’ve seen echo chambers spring up. If you want an example of an echo chamber, go onto Facebook, and find Bill Maher’s page and take a look at the comments on a polarizing post. For an example of the other side, go to Breitbart’s page.

People willingly place themselves into echo chambers based on what they already believe. So for example, if you’re anti gun, you will like all of the gun control pages, as well as the left wing media personalities and outlets. What happens after doing that, is every time you’re on Facebook, everything you see you already agree with. You then begin to, without question, believe everything being fed to you.

If someone tells you something that you already believe, are you likely to fact check it? In most cases, the answer will be no. The key thing that an echo chamber relies upon is that you’ve trusted it. Once you place your trust somewhere, you begin to rely upon them to provide you with truth. Unfortunately, most of the echo chambers take advantage of that trust, and force feed people propaganda.

I’ll use myself as an example, but I’m pro gun, but don’t really lean one way or the other politically…I guess you can call me a libertarian or moderate. I’m a member of the NRA, however I actually fact check anything I see from them to make sure that if I turn around and regurgitate the information, that it’s factually sound. By fact checking, I mean getting information from official, mainly government sources. This is what is lacking with the anti gun side…the only fact checking they do, if they even bother to do it, is taking information from sources that are anti gun. That would be the equivalent to me fact checking the NRA by going to Breitbart.

People, regardless of which country they’re from, need to be very proactive about fact checking from non-biased sources. These echo chambers are extremely dangerous to liberty. As we’ve seen over the last decade, with the explosive growth of social media, people have become more polarized on political issues. I’ve never seen the country this divided on things. I would have no problems pointing the finger directly at social media, and the echo chambers that have developed within.

The other issue is that people are basing their stances on emotions. I don’t think I’ve seen many decisions made based on a person’s emotions, that turned out to be good decisions. Emotional decisions aren’t based on logic, they’re based on irrational fears.

Why are people so misinformed on gun control? Hopefully the above answered it, but for the TLDR crowd - echo chambers, failure to fact check from unbiased sources, and emotion-based decision making.

At a higher level, there will never be any real solutions brought to the table because the anti gun side went so far left on gun control, that it caused the pro gun side to dig trenches, set up concertina wire, and prepare to not give one inch. I think the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard from someone on the anti gun side is them say “why won’t these gun owners meet us in the middle and make a compromise to make sure the next mass shooting won’t happen…it’s clear that they simply don’t care”. Gun owners are routinely blamed for every mass shooting, told that we don’t care about the people killed, as well as other equally ridiculous things. When the pro gun people respond with “we’ve already given up enough, and nothing you’re offering will even remotely help”, the anti gun side rolls their eyes.

It’s clear that there’s some sort of plan in place for eventual complete civilian disarmament, but I honestly don’t have any idea the reasoning behind it, or what the ultimate goal would be. I could take guesses, but that would qualify me for an InfoWars membership or something, which is something that I don’t want.

I really do hope that as a country we can come together and find actual solutions to the root cause, but one side wants to take all guns (and lies about that being the goal), while the other side sees through the propaganda and refuses to give one inch. The anti gun side wants to focus on guns, when the problem is with people. How many of the previous mass shootings involved failure of government at some level? Effectively there are already tools in place to help, but if they’re not being utilized, what’s the point of adding more that won’t really do anything? Ask an anti gun person about those failures at multiple levels of government, and what will happen is that they’ll change the subject to “well no one needs an ___”. They won’t answer the question because doing so would force them to acknowledge the fact that they’ve been lied to.

I hope this answer didn’t come across as too “pro gun opinion”, but this topic hits one of my buttons regarding a group of people who despite the numerous examples of how inept big government is, they push for more of it. They want more government so much, that they’ll ignore anything that questions their beliefs in it. We’ve somehow changed so much as a nation, that Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you…” to “ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country CAN DO FOR YOU”. More government is the answer to a question asked by big government. Don’t perpetuate their question by asking it on their behalf.

Right now people are using emotional response to gun debate instead of rational thinking. More of the same laws won't do anything and hasn't made any difference so far,it's time to approach this from another angle and put the blame where it belongs at the criminals. If judges and prosecutors would really punish gun crime it will deter criminals(the actual people doing the killing)from doing it in the first place. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem unlike what the democrats want you to believe. Criminals don't care about laws so why would more laws make a difference? More regulations are just another step towards socialism the real goal of democrats is to seize more power…..

Why is gun control such a divisive issue in American politics? Ignorance mostly, but fortunately that can be cured. I will follow with a few short lessons.

The never ending drumbeat for an Assault Weapons ban because they are just so deadly and murder too many people. They are so deadly that they should only be for the military and no one needs thirty rounds to hunt a deer. Remember in 2013 when Vice President Joe Biden said “Buy A Shotgun” and then proceeded to give the worst advice ever for safely handling said shotgun much to the chagrin of his Secret Service detail I am sure. But I digress, the year before he gave that advice, the year he gave that advice, and every year since then shotguns were used to murder more people than all rifles combined, including the oh so scary looking AR-15. Have you heard Hillary wanting to ban shotguns yet? Now on to the hunting thing. While firearms do lend themselves to sporting purposes quite readily and enjoyably there is not one single sporting purpose to the Second Amendment. It is now, and always has been about defense; both personal and common. I have fought an insurgency as an invading army and I can tell you they gave us more problems than the former standing army. That is the deterrent I think the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the Second Amendment. I can guarantee you that every military leader around the globe that has ever war gamed an invasion of the United States has planed on facing not only our military but also our armed citizens. I am sure also that they would love to see an assault weapons ban too.

Moving on to the “gun show loophole”. Have you been to a gun show lately? Most of the dealers there have an FFL, therefore they are required to do a background check. There are some dealers that do not have an FFL but what you are more than likely going to find on their table are things like $5ooo Colt Anacondas or $200 Carcano rifles, both of which are not very popular for drive by or mass shootings. Granted the latter was supposedly used to kill President Kennedy but that debate could get way out in left field. At any rate those dealers do more trading among themselves than they do the general public. The run of the mill criminal is not going to gun shows, they are getting their guns from other criminals in parking lots and apartments. I miss the days of good deals at gun shows, now their prices are ridiculous and the good deals are on line. Just for kicks go to Buy Guns at GunBroker.com and see if you can get one without a background check.

Finally a real short one. Felons, Criminal Street Gang Members and Members of Terrorist Organizations are already prohibited from buying firearms. There is due process involved to get them there, and there darn well should be. Just being put on a list because you have a funny last name or practice a religion other than Christianity is not reason enough to be denied one of the Rights laid out in The Bill of Rights.

It is the information age, do not loose your liberty over what is trending on Twitter. If you want to learn gun safety go to Education and Training|Education and Training and find a class near you.

Oh dear. There are so many ways, it’s hard to pick.

Let’s start with a biggie: the “gun show loophole myth.” That’s the one where it’s claimed that 40% of gun sales take place without a background check. The claim is often used to bolster support for increased background checks, including face-to-face private transactions at gun shows.

The origins of the myth lie in a telephone survey conducted in November and December 1994 for a study by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.

The actual questions were “Did you acquire a gun in the past two years?” and “Where did you get it?” with a selection of answers.

There were more than 2,400 people that participated in the study. Out of that group, just 251 answered that they had acquired a gun in the previous two years. Even Professor Cook said that the sample couldn’t be used to make a general conclusion.

Of those that responded, 60% said they purchased their gun at a licensed retailer, such as a gun shop, sporting goods store or pawn shop. So that part is true.

It’s the rest of the story that turns the myth into a lie. Another 17% said they got their gun as a gift or purchase from a family member. Add to that 12% who got their gun from a friend. So we’re we’ve accounted for 89% of transfers and we’re not done yet. About 3% of respondents said they got their gun through the mail, though I am not sure how that worked since mail order firearms have been illegal since 1968. Another 4% gave other responses, such as “I don’t know” or “I prefer not to say.” The remaining 4% said they got their gun at a gun show. From 40%, we’re down to 4%.

The other sneaky part of the claim is that the 1994 survey covered the two years prior, so any purchase made from the end of 1992 to the time of the survey was included. But background checks didn’t become mandatory for retail gun sales until February 1994. So the majority of transactions including those at licensed dealers didn’t involve a background check.

Incidentally, transactions between family members are routinely exempted from background check requirements in the states that demand them for all other transactions.

Then there’s the broader claim that background checks will reduce mass shootings and school shootings. Chris Murphy, one of the Senators from Connecticut, made the claim when he introduced legislation calling for expanded checks just a few days after a man that had passed more than a dozen of them shot more than 600 people in Las Vegas. Of all of the mass shooters who committed their crimes after February 1994 and where the source of the guns was reported, 76% of the guns were obtained by the shooter from a licensed dealer, meaning a background check was performed. In the cases of Kip Kinkel (Thurston High School) and Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook), the guns were purchased for them by parents.

Anyone who tells you that we need to close the gun show loophole is either ignorant or lying. Be sure to offer them the choice, because there isn’t a third option.

Then there is the whole “gun violence” thing. This is the one where they are confident that if they say the words “gun violence” that their audience will think of murder.

Suicide accounts for about 60% of all firearm-related fatalities. But firearms are used in only about half of all suicides, so there is a different problem involved. This is especially true if one looks at the fastest-growing demographic, which is females committing suicide. In almost every age bracket, women prefer either poisoning (prescription drugs and/or alcohol) or suffocation (hanging) are the preferred methods. Heard anyone getting hysterical about “belt violence” or “extension cord violence?”

The number of murders involving firearms actually hit a nearly 60-year low in 2014. It’s risen since then but it’s still lower than the average rate from 1960 to 2016. You’d never know that from what the gun control advocates preach.

While they are used in the majority of deaths, guns account for less than 10% of the total number of violence-related fatal and non-fatal injuries requiring emergency room treatment. This includes the crimes of assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault, manslaughter, non-negligent manslaughter and murder.

Of course, no discussion of well-cooked statistics is complete without the subject of mass shootings. The magic here is how one defines a mass shooting. The FBI and other authorities usually define a mass shooting as one that involves four fatalities, not including the perpetrator. Such events, while more common now, are still fairly rare. So the more enterprising, but less honest, number crunchers redefine things as any shooting where there are four casualties, even if it means only four people were wounded to some degree in an incident involving a gun. This is how we get numbers of mass shootings in a single year that exceed the total number of real mass shootings in the past 50 years. School shootings are a popular subset. Everytown for Gun Safety famously churned out a big number of school shootings only to have it shot down by fact-checkers because it included shootings that even the police said weren’t related, such as the body of a person murdered elsewhere that was dumped in a school parking lot late at night.

One “mass shooting” that stood out in my mind is the event that happened in shopping center parking lot in Sand City, California. Two wanted fugitives were spotted in the lot and police were summoned. Upon arrival, two officers approached the fugitives’ car. The criminals opened fire, wounding the two officers who returned fire, killing the two fugitives. Four casualties, right? Must be a mass shooting.

The list goes on and on. There’s no apparent end to the legerdemain gun control fans will perform to bolster their case.

Stephen Cataldo seems to think the issue is refusing to compromise. That’s bull hooey. It’s all that gun owners have done since 1934. “Compromise”.

Only the “compromise” so far is not giving up as much as the gun grabbers wanted to take, and getting nothing of what the pro-gun people wanted in return.

It’s like compromising on a birthday cake - a whole cake isn’t good for you, give us your cake. No- it’s my cake. OK keep half and we won’t bother you. Only the next day it’s that half a cake isn’t good for you give it to us. No- it’s still my half-a-cake. OK give us half of it and we won’t bother you … until tomorrow, of course! That’s not compromise, it’s confiscation in slow motion.

Today we are expected to “compromise” on external accessories, like adjustable stocks and magazine limits. In return we get ……. Nothing. As usual. The proposed limitations, such as magazine limits, are ineffective-indeed useless.

At Parkland about 18 months ago a school shooter chewed up, IIRC, 17 lives, wounding many more. There were laws being proposed to the legislature at that very moment, including a 10-round limit on magazine capacity. Guess why they wanted that limit? To reduce mass casualties. Fine. What did the shooter actually use? How ironic- those exact same 10-round magazines. In fact, if every one of the proposed laws were passed, the shooter would have violated NONE of them. Right, every one of the proposed laws intended to prevent mass casualties would have NOT been broken, much less have affected the outcome.

Yet the grabbers persist in perpetuating the fantasy the new laws would have done some good.

The only people affected, of course, are those who don’t commit crimes or atrocities in the first place. Their rate of crime or atrocity would have gone from zero to … what? A negative number? Can you even HAVE a negative crime rate?

Someone intent on mass killings is not going to be dissuaded by a mere misdemeanor violation; hell, I’d wager if they intend mass murder, then NO LAW whatsoever will dissuade them. If murder is already illegal, who thinks a law on magazine limits will change things? Seriously - WHO? Just how absurd is this thinking, if you can even call it thinking?

The vitriol isn’t because group A and group B can’t agree, it’s because what Group A wants is boneheadedly insane. It has no articulable merit, will have absolutely zero effect on any crime at all, yet is pushed as “common sense” when it has no sense at all.

Group B in the meantime is accused of Naziism, bigotry, paternalism, genocide, hating women, racism, being murderers-to-be, and the list goes on.

These are words intended to convince and compel cooperation?? Seriously? And they want us to compromise based on that? “You’re a mother#^^<~ murderer, a nazi, a criminal. Now let’s sit down and talk common sense”. Sure, let me hurry up to sit with you.

They offer exactly nothing in return. nothing whatsoever. Apparently not even half of the cake crumbs left over from all the previous “compromises”.

They can kiss ……. You know what!

You've asked a two-part question so I will answer it in two parts.

Is there a middle ground for the gun control debate? No. Either you have the right to bear arms, or you don't. There really is no middle ground which is why the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution uses the phrase “shall not be infringed.” The letter of the law states the right to bear arms as an absolute with no exceptions. The spirit of the law, as illustrated in many writings by the same people who framed the Constitution and Bill of Rights, is such that the populace must remain armed so that they can remain free of tyranny. This is intended to prevent a corrupt government from destroying the freedom and democracy established by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as provide a way for people to defend themselves, their loved ones and their homes.

As for the second part of your question regarding sufficient regulation, it is completely subjective and the answer will be different depending who you ask. I am a Constitutionalist and I think there's too much regulation, because the Constitution says my right shall not be infringed and the Constitution is the highest law of the land. By that reasoning any laws that are passed and any Court decisions that are upheld which state anything other than your right shall not be infringed are unconstitutional. You can't pass laws that contradict the highest law of the land. If you look at the numbers according to the Department of Justice and the FBI the places with the most gun violence are those that have the most regulations including, ironically, gun-free zones.

The logic behind this is rather simple to follow. A person who commits a crime is breaking the law. When laws are passed that disarm law abiding people, those law-abiding people don't have the right to have a weapon with which they may defend themselves. A criminal is much more likely to commit a crime in an area where they themselves are not likely to be harmed. Most criminals who own firearms obtained them through illegal means such as burglary, robbery, theft, or they will buy a firearm illegally from someone who has committed a burglary, robbery or theft of a firearm. There's no reason to think a criminal who obtained their firearm illegally is going to abide by laws that tell them they can't have a firearm in a certain place. They're going to choose the path of least resistance. It actually creates an area where a criminal with a firearm knows that people are easy prey and they are unlikely to shoot back. Would you rather do something where you think you're going to get killed or would you rather do something where you think you're going to live? The choice is easy! It's that simple.

For me it would be for the people most against guns to recognize that not all gun owners are the same. I carry the same reason a cops does - self defense.

Criminals carry for the opposite reason, to intimidate and take the offense.

To tar me with the same brush you tar criminals and the insane is insulting, and drives a wedge into the conversation. It pretty much stifles the conversation when I am accused of carrying a gun so I can kill children and babies. That is so incredibly crass, dishonest, vile, insulting, and without the remotest effort to think, there seems no point in trying to talk to someone that obtuse. I am the least likely person to be described as a “bad guy”. Yet there they are holding that brush, demanding I give up my guns.

People like me prevent anywhere from 500K to 3 million crimes a year. People like them seem to want those crimes to happen. It’s downright perplexing. They appear to think it is more noble for a woman to suffer a rape and a beating, perhaps die, than to stop their attacker, perhaps HE dies.

Secondly, quit lying.

Moms Demand Action and their ilk purport to count mass shootings. Their agenda demands big numbers. But to find out Mother Jones counts 26 instances of a mass shooting in 2018-present day would leave them sputtering - 26 instances in 3.25 years with fewer than 400 total casualties just doesn’t generate much gravitas.

And I drew some totals from their data:

So groups like Brady and Moms count gang shootouts in the wee hours on deserted parking lots as mass shootings. Does a gang deal going sideways even remotely begin to look like what you think a mas shooting looks like, say at a Walmart? They count 2 cops and 2 bad guys, in a shootout, ending with 2 bad guys dead and a wounded cop as a mass shooting. That is so disingenuous you quickly begin to discount their entire agenda. If they lie about the counts, what else are they lying about? When you try to discuss it, and they call you a baby-killer… Well there went any hope of a rational discussion. Bye.

Facts are facts. They have no compassion, they have no heart because facts have no emotion.

So to describe a given gun control law, or position on the law, as being wrong because <then list facts> isn’t having a lack of compassion.

When I can show that a given law actually makes people MORE at risk (gun free zones for instance), then I am actually using facts (89% of mass shooting happen in gun free zones) to argue for a change in the law in order to protect more people. That’s compassionate, even though it argues against gun control.

For me to demand that laws be enforced against those that violently, with a gun, violate those laws isn’t lacking compassion. Instead it is showing MORE compassion for their victims.

Admittedly I have little compassion for those that destroy lives. Straight up - they can stay in jail till they die for having destroyed innocent lives. By doing so, those violent criminals will never again destroy another innocent life. Is that not compassion for the innocent?

The biggest issue we face is people claiming rights that don’t actually exist, then complaining others aren’t “compassionate” because they decline to accept those “rights”.

For instance, there is no right to safety. Our rights come from Nature. Nature is not safe. Just ask how safe you are from a tiger in the wild. How safe are you from storms, or wildfire? “Safety” is a personal impression. What’s safe for me may be seen as very unsafe by you. Should your personal fears about safety be grounds to control me? See where we’re going? We are free to select our own course. For some there may be more risk on a given path than others. Where one’s actions interfere with the freedoms of another, then government is there to intervene. In the meantime, we should be free to choose our path.

Many poor answers are already here.

One could argue that it was a major issue from day one. Literally, as it was the confiscation of guns and powder that took the British to Lexington and Concord for the first shots of the revolutionary war.

However, in the modern context, I would put it somewhere between the mid 1960’s and the mid 1970’s. The assassinations of the 1960’s is really what created the modern gun control movement.

Before that, firearms weren’t that controversial. They existed. Most states had some sort of right to bear arms within their constitution. While some reports have stated that gun ownership was rare, the study that this was based on is flawed, and better work reveals that somewhere around 40% of Americans have historically owned firearms for a very, very long time.

Gun control was a thing for decades. States and cities had varying laws (many of which could be summarized as “blacks and Indians not permitted to have firearms”. ) Some were fairly strict. Others were not. Quite a lot weren’t enforced if you were white. Anybody who tries a general statement like “gun control was strict back then” is wrong. It wasn’t that simple. It really depended on your local politics.

The first federal gun control happened in 1934 with the NFA. This wasn’t terribly controversial. The previously mentioned assassinations would create the 1968 GCA and that’s when things got sporty.

But it was really in the 1970’s when the modern gun control movement was formed and the modern NRA was reformulated to counter it. So here we are.

Well, first there would have to be a gun control debate. Right now what we have is basically a bar fight.

At my age, I am not likely to change my views on gun rights or gun control. I have more than 50 years as an adult that tells me gun control, as practiced today, is poppycock. (See? Told you I was old.)

I first became a gun owner almost exactly 49 years ago. I don’t see any benefits in the laws that have been proposed for the best part of the last 30 years. As far as I have been able to discover, they don’t work. Some of them even have the potential to create new problems.

I imagine a change would require that I stop thinking of a firearm as a “thing.” I would have to buy into the whole “trigger pulls the finger” argument and think of guns as something more than manufactured products that serve a specific purpose, which is to fire a bullet when the trigger is pulled.

The toughest part would be having to consider myself as a problem that needs to be fixed.

Since gun control laws are powerless to control the criminals, they can only be applied to those who abide by the law. Therefore, logic tells me that gun control advocates regard gun owners as a problem. They already demand I take “ownership” of mass shootings, so I suppose they really do regard me as a problem.

I honestly don’t think there is anything that could persuade me to make that particular leap.

What would be very interesting to me, though, is to see an answer that is something other than a glib response from someone on the gun control side.

Single issue voters.

There was a time when elections were relatively difficult to predict, and a huge number of states were swing states. All the way up to 1984, Ronald Reagan swept 49 states, proving one thing: a whole lot of Democrats were willing to vote for a Republican.

Guns are a lot like LGBT issues. For those involved, any infringement is a direct attack on their lifestyle, and they have little interest in your reasoning. No matter what you bring to the political table, they will not vote against themselves.

As it is, there are a whole lot of gun owners, and a whole lot of single issue pro-gun voters. They tend to be concentrated in rural areas. There's enough of them to win elections in red/swing areas, enough to keep many of them red/swing when they'd otherwise be safe-blue.

With each victory for the gun rights lobby, they gained more favorable standing among the party most sympathetic to their views. Their concentration is so strong, they essentially control primary elections. In response, the other party vehemently attacks gun rights, and purged their own members who weren't dogmatic enough on the subject.

In a nutshell, we're down to two competing organized crime families masquerading as political parties, that have no goals beyond "screwing" the other side.

That single issue pro-gun voter is caught in the crossfire. He doesn't give a crap about Russia, China, tariffs, or immigration. After five decades, he's long since given up hope that politicians can actually get him a decent national healthcare plan. He can even tolerate being expected to pay for all of this stuff dreamed up by degenerate lawyer-politicians, from border walls to taxes on plastic straws. All he wants is his own property, the firearms he has spent tens of thousands of dollars on.

When he is being blamed for homicides committed two thousand miles away by a guy he never met, he can't help but see the comparison between the anti-gun lobby and the KKK, between Everytown for Gun Safety and Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric. What's the difference? They're all blaming people for things they had no control over, simply because of one identifying factor: owning a gun, race, nationality, etc…

If you think America is bad right now…come back and post your thoughts in ten years. I can almost guarantee the division will be much worse.

The question is, Is the degree to which the gun control debate has been politicised making it impossible for both sides to be honest about it?

No, my 50 years of interest in the subject of gun control laws has shown me a few things are true. One is that people are not pathological liars, they do repeat what they think is the truth from sources they believe to be trustworthy (but aren’t). So that means: the sources are wrong and dishonest.

Because the largest source of gun control “information” by far is the Democratic Party and many of its “prominent” members, it is clear that for practical purposes we can say that “one side” has been consistently presenting fraudulent claims and information to trusting, unwary people.

Also, before I even joined the National Rifle Association, I had already acquired a lot of practical working knowledge about people and such things as guns, engineering, chemistry and basic physics. I didn’t join the NRA because of its politics, I joined because I was interested in and active in shooting sports! This is exactly the reason most of its 5 million members have for belonging. It was the events leading up to and following the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which drew me into the political side of gun ownership but I remained active in shooting sports too.

I mention the GCA 1968 because it was then when I heard that Congress had called on the NRA for its opinion when that law was being drafted. And it was because of that I also learned that some prominent Democrats were unhappy with the NRA’s testimony on the law.

Just look at the most recent claims by “prominent Democrats” and you can see the effect it has on people who are looking for answers regarding gun ownership and the role of guns in U.S. society.

Hillary Clinton: “I will fight the NRA and the gun lobby.” She saying she will “fight” an organization which, unlike her and her husband, has never been investigated for violations of the law - never! She will “fight the gun lobby” as if a fairly small industry has the power to change what legislators do with a maximum allowable $5000 per legislator. This is pure dishonest fabrication disguised in crusader language.

Bill Clinton (in the 1990s) “We must eliminate assault weapons from our streets.” This at a time when very few AR-15s and AK-47 type rifles even existed and they played NO ROLE in gun crimes AT ALL!

That of course is a tiny sample, there are literally hundreds more from the last 25 years alone.

Meanwhile, I have seen claims of NRA inaccuracy but on checking I find they are always false claims using (again) crusader language.

So: eventually word will spread far enough that people will become aware of the Democratic Party as the single largest source of inaccurate information about guns and gun control. Dishonesty isn’t magically invulnerable, its source can be identified and neutralized.

The most important attribute a defensive firearm is reliability. It must work, first time, every time. And the key to that is “keep it simple, stupid”. The more gimmicks and gadgets you add to a gun, the greater the likelihood that one of them will fail when you need it the most.

My CCW instructor was a laser. He had lasers on all his firearms. He raved about the benefits of lasers. He went to demonstrate to the class how great they were. He drew his personal firearm, aimed it down range and…..and…and…no laser. He fiddled with it for quite a bit and never got it working. At which point I said “You know the bad guy has already stabbed you 47 times, right?”

1. A fundamental cultural divide. The two sides here tend to talk past each other, and eventually assume that the other side literally hates their very existence, and it becomes an intractable, zero sum issue.
2. A non-zero sized element of the gun control wing that publically pushes for government confiscation or even the use of weapons of mass destruction against its political opponents on this issue. (See: Eric Swalwell). One might as well drop pure anthrax into the water.
3. Gun rights, for many pro-gun people, are the lens through which they process and understand the relationship between people and state. They see threats to gun rights as being threats to their lives and way of life, and they respond accordingly.
4. There is very little effort at creating policy that would be mutually acceptable. The preferred political strategy is to damage the other party… Hence trying to destroy the NRA, or the ATF. The water is so incredibly poisoned at this point that nobody can even interject new ideas that might be mutually acceptable.

Compromise requires a deep well of public trust that government is going to enforce laws in a fair and just manner. This is essentially absent in the US, especially when it comes to firearms. Neither side trusts the other (often for good reasons). And comments like those from Mr. Swalwell essentially have poisoned this water for the next fifty years. It can’t be fixed or changed. And federal legislative efforts are all but certain to be ignored, if they can even be passed.

It’s too bad, because the current regulatory systems we have are, frankly, stupid. But neither side is willing to really make an effort to build a new one that would make everybody happy, or at least reasonably satisfied.

So this answer has gotten a lot of attention. In one of the comments, I ended up putting in my own idealized legislative scheme. I’ll repeat it here for easier access:

In my idealized world? Here would be my legislative proposal:

1. A combined, shall issue, federally mandated, state level concealed carry permit that’s also a permit to purchase concealable weapons. (handguns and firearms with an overall length of no more than 24″ in their shortest fireable configuration) Drivers license cost and time to obtain. (i.e., you do some one time training/test, then just renew it for low cost every few years) Electronically verified at purchase to make sure that a buyer hasn’t caught a felony.
1. This deals with the reality that the overwhelming number of homicides are committed with handguns.
2. This gets rid of the ridiculous fiction that the current carry system has.
3. This largely shuts down the straw purchase issue, because G homies baby-mama isn’t gonna have that permit.
2. An app based, blockchain style background check/transfer and firearms tracking system. Right now, we want to know where crime guns come from, but this is very difficult. At the same time, firearm owners don’t want the government to know who has what. But these goals aren’t mutually exclusive. The government only cares about what the government already has. Build a system so they can only track the history of those guns. Carrot and stick for private transfers: Criminalize it if you transfer a gun to someone without using the system and it’s used in crime later, and provide a blanket liability protection if you do use the system. That also means that you basically have a duty to report stolen guns. It also means a state issue ID that can be electronically checked by a smartphone.
3. Continue an NFA like (but better)process of actual registration for machine guns and crew served weapons. Not just the tax stamp, but actual, no shit registration.
4. A tax incentive for safe storage. (i.e., make the purchase of a safe tax deductible).
5. Some system where qualified health care workers could put a temporary hold on ability to purchase. Sort of like red flag laws, but without the confiscatory elements. ((Confiscation only after a hearing with representation), oh, and if you lose stuff, state has to pay replacement value)
6. Dump basically everything else. Import restrictions, mag limits, AWB’s, “sporting purposes”, machine gun bans, everything. The whole current regulatory scheme goes in the trash, because it’s stupid.

Nobody is really going to like this proposal. But I think it would actually have a shot at reducing violence without just making life for legal gun owners difficult.

Because we don’t want it, because it does not work and we can see through the lies.

So what is it you want to do that I would shoot you for, don’t lie, we know that is the issue.

Because you can’t rule as a single party tyranny when the citizens are armed. This is the entire reason for the 2nd Amendment, to permit the people to oppose government. The Communist Democrat Party wants to be that single party that rules as a tyranny, and the 2nd is getting in the way.

Boo hoo.

Not while I live. Not going to happen until the last drop of my blood sifts into the sand beneath my cold and lifeless body.

We’ve already watched the Communist Democrats rig more than one election. We have fought through the courts their clearly unconstitutional gun grabbing. We have already seen states respond with protection measures for that massively critical 2nd Amendment. We are watching that Communist Democrat Party engage us in unwinnable and useless wars, while arming this nations enemies. We have already seen them open the border, destroy the economy and destroy the education system.

So no. I won’t be giving up my guns or ammo until they take it off my corpse. Government enables mass shootings, disarms the innocent to protect the guilty and lies to us constantly with bald faced whoppers that defy all belief. No, I do not and never will ever trust this government. And don’t tell me that they don’t - in my working career I helped them do all of these things.

I live with walking distance of that border, so don’t tell me that border is secure either.

The will of the government.

The will of the people.

The Constitution.

Ideally these three factors would be in accord but this often does not seem to be the case.

Our elected representatives’ actions should reflect the will of the people that they represent, within the boundaries set forth in The Constitution. In 1994, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, an assault weapon ban. As it turned out, this did not reflect the will of the people and the Democrats lost both houses of Congress in the next election.

The will of the people can be difficult to determine. Polls have proven notoriously inaccurate. Whether by design, with the media attempting to shape policy by agenda driven polling, or simply by inaccurate polls, they have been proven wrong time and time again. The definitive polls are taken at the ballot box.

Finally, there is The Constitution, which puts limits on what can transpire, regardless of the will of the people or the government. The majority cannot always have what it wants. Rights are rights and are not subject to the vagaries of public opinion or demand.

IMAGINE YOU LIKE BASEBALL.

No, that’s understatement. You love baseball. You grew up with it. Your dad used to play it with you, with your siblings, neighbors, mom and even your pet. You bonded with them through baseball. You communicated through baseball. You barbecued while playing baseball. You studied baseball. Lived baseball. Breathed baseball. You had baseball running through your veins. Of course, you went to baseball games with your family members, when you weren’t in baseball camp. You even asked your wife to marry you at a baseball game. The crowd cheered when she said “yes.” Your first son was born at a game and you named him after your favorite player. Now that you have young children of your own, you do the same with them as your father before you. When your dad died, you spoke about your joint love of the game at his funeral. How you went on a cross country tour stopping at all the top stadiums across the country in the weeks before he died. You were thankful for how the game brought you all together. You connect with your children and family through baseball. It has a lot to do with how you identify as a person. Imagine the strong feelings you have for baseball.

You know that in certain circumstances bats can be dangerous. However, while acting responsibly, it can be safe. You have learned and instruct others on baseball safety. Always use a helmet when you bat. Wear a glove in the field. Stay behind the fence if you aren’t batting, in the field or when observing. Don’t stand too close to someone swinging a bat. Don’t swing a bat if someone is standing close to you. Someone who is not responsible or is unstable should not be given a bat. Bats should be kept away from them, in a bag locked in the trunk of your car.

Now imagine that one day something terrible happens. A boy dies at a baseball game. It is highly publicized and there are calls for investigation from the media. A large segment of the population, soccer fans, who never watch baseball, don’t understand why anyone would even want to own a bat or be allowed to without a background check that identifies that they practice safe bat behavior and are not a threat to others while playing baseball. The investigations show that there have been 850 deaths at the ballpark. There are numerous other injuries to players. The public uproar leads to the passage of laws regulating bat safety. The most dangerous bats are banned for use for use by the general population. This includes a bat you don’t personally own but have always wanted to own. You used to read about it and fantasized hitting homers with it. It hits balls faster and further. Let’s call these bats “semi-automatic” because hitting home runs with them require some effort but are almost “automatic.” The laws do allow for professional baseball players to use these bats but not the general public.

The National BaseBall Association (NBBA) is established and starts lobbying congress to pass laws favorable to baseball. They conduct intensive public relations campaigns to get out the message to baseball lovers like yourself that “they are trying to ban baseball and take all of your bats away.” You hear it over and over again on Television, in papers, in mailings, on the radio, at dinner conversation, everywhere. “They don’t want any bats allowed. They don’t want any balls allowed. The only thing they want to permit is soccer.” If this happens, things will be different. The next thing you know, we will have a Queen instead of a president and soccer will be our national pastime, the latter obviously being worse. The highly politicized issue becomes known as “bat control.”

The NBBA starts to get involved in local politics supporting politicians who are against bat control. Their leader Wayne Le Pew becomes a public figure. Every time there is another baseball related death he travels to the location and explains that if only everyone had a bat, this would never happen! On the other side, bat control advocates say that only wooden bats should be allowed! Before long the Supreme Court of the United States takes up a case, which later becomes a landmark case known as Soccer Players vs. Keller (SP vs Keller).

Keller had a metal bat in the playground that was confiscated by his teacher because a boy playing soccer was injured by it accidentally. It wasn’t a bat that was on the banned list. It was just an ordinary metal bat. He sued for his individual right to bear a bat guaranteed in the Bill of Baseball.

At issue to the court was how to interpret the phrase in the Bill of Baseball where it states: “A professional baseball team, being necessary to the game of baseball, the right of the people to keep and bear bats, shall not be infringed.” Should the right to keep and bear bats be protected for all individuals or only for professional baseball players?

In a shocking 5 - 4 decision the court rules it is an individuals right to bear Bats for recreational use. They clarify that certain bats that are “dangerous and unusual,” like those on the banned list can only be used by a professional team. Metal bats however can be used by all. It is a victory that is strongly celebrated by Wayne Le Pew and other baseball rights advocates across the world. Bat makers breathe a sigh of relief. They donate a ton of money to the NBBA to preserve baseball rights as well as their company profits. After all selling metal bats is a big industry in the USA.

Years later, the debate continues. Since you love baseball and it is a big part of who you are, you are concerned when many individuals you trust repeat the mantra “they are trying to take your bats away.” There must be some truth to it when educated, responsible individuals support these statements. Even the new candidate for president Bubba Gump and TV and radio personalities Sean Fanny and Rush McSanity say it repeatedly. They also repeatedly say you should not trust anyone who supports bat control.

IMAGINE that you were this individual and baseball as you know it—life as you know it—was possibly being threatened. How would you feel?

Gun rights advocates are worried that guns will be completely banned and life as they know it will change. While they may not agree or maintain extreme positions, like those of the NRA that oppose any reform, many may acknowledge that this is an effective long-term strategy to make it harder to ever end up having their guns “taken away.” Some gun control advocates, on the other hand, may never have owned a gun and would prefer if there were no guns. They believe that the world would be better off without them. However, guns are an important cultural part of many peoples lives.

The skewed debate has gun right advocates that want no changes, under any circumstances on one side. Gun control advocates are less skewed and want reforms like background checks and assault rifle bans. While this is generally acceptable to most responsible gun owners, they may also fear that in the long run, perhaps not in their lifetime, but in their children's, private gun ownership will be completely banned.

In summary, guns are a deeply divisive issue because guns are deeply embedded in the culture and lives of many American’s. The divide is reinforced by decades-long public messaging campaigns (“take your guns away”) that strategically and deliberately reinforce extreme positions, that may be supported with an “end justifies the means” argument. Most Americans support restrictions like background checks, even gun owners.

If you don’t care for guns, or baseball, I am sure you can imagine something in your life (driving, amusement parks etc.) that is important to you. Think about how you would feel rather than what you might logically conclude, if your way of life was being threatened. Would you support a group with extreme arguments that advocated against any changes even if the changes were 3 steps removed from what you cared about most? If you can imagine this, you might gain some insight to understand why the gun control debate is so heated.

Disclaimer: Please do not interpret anything I have written here as a reflection of my own personal support for gun control or against it.

References:

Washington Youth Baseball

Decertified Bat List (Baseball)

Washington Youth Baseball

Bat Boy, 9, Dies After Being Struck In Baseball Game

Death at the Ballpark: a compendium of all the people who have died at baseball games.

District of Columbia v. Heller

Is there a constitutional right to have a rapidly firing assault gun?

Machine Guns Aren't Protected By The Second Amendment, Court Rules

Sean Hannity Aids Donald Trump’s Second Amendment Walk-Back

Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?

Technically the Second Amendment has no bearing on the debate over gun control. The Constitution, as originally envisioned and intended, was supposed to lay out exactly what the federal government could do. Since it contained no provisions to regulate arms it was felt by some that the Second Amendment (as well as the who bill of rights) was unnecessary. A similar argument was made about everything contained within the Bill of Rights. These people also felt that an explicit list of things the government couldn’t do might imply that they had the power, they just weren’t supposed to use it.

Of course, the counter argument in favor of the Bill of Rights was the fact that the things contained in Bill of Rights weren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and so some future politicians might take the stance of “It doesn’t say we can’t do that”.

The side in favor of the Bill of Rights eventually won out, and we eventually got the 14th Amendment with stated that the states were also bound by the federal constitution*.

*The original idea (before the 14th Amendment) was that the federal government was bound by it’s Constitution and the state governments were each bound by their own constitutions. So if the state of Georgia amended it’s constitution to completely remove the right to keep and bear arms (prior to the 14th Amendment) that was fine. After the ratification of the 14th Amendment the states had to follow the same rules as the federal government, regardless of what their state constitution says.

A perfect real world example is religions tests to hold a public office. The U.S. Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) says that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. Some 14 states have had religious tests at some point in their histories, and there are still quite a few states that still have such tests as part of their constitution. It wasn’t until a 1961 SCOTUS case (Torasco V. Watkins) that it was held that the First Amendment right to religious freedom applied to the states, via the 14th Amendment.

Anyway, as to how it all affects the “debate” over gun control:

• Some, like myself, see the Second Amendment as a bulwark against the infringements of those who would disarm the whole country because of the (already illegal and immoral) actions of a fraction of a percent of all firearms owners.
• Some, like the type of people who want to disarm the whole country because of the (already illegal and immoral) actions of a fraction of a percent of firearms owners see it as a barrier to them achieving their goals.
• There are, of course, those on this side who obsess over, and misinterpret, the militia clause and insist that the Second Amendment isn’t a barrier to gun control. Gun laws just help to create and maintain a “well regulated militia”. Never mind that that’s not what “well regulated” means.