Gun Control Begins (and Ends) At Home

While the media seems to have mostly overlooked the victims of the Parkland shooting, they’ve done plenty well (and in record time, no less) building soapboxes for adamant finger-wagging teens who clearly know what’s best for an entire nation.

Although, indeed, we sympathize with what they’ve been through, you know what they say about what paves the road to Hell.

Yes, efforts at sweeping gun control on a national level are being flung back toward the wall.

And they should fail to stick every time.

Gun control begins (and ends) at home.

As James Davenport recently pointed out in FEE, there are reasons why Congress doesn’t act on gun violence. (“The reality is,” says James Davenport, “Congress isn’t, and can’t be, responsible for anyone’s personal safety.”)

There’s growing sentiment (at least that’s what the media wants you to believe) that the (at least) 60,000,000 gun owners, in possession of over 300 million guns shouldn’t have some, or in the most extreme positions, all of them.

And, at the very least, they shouldn’t have those devious machines deemed “assault rifles.” (Of which, contrary to popular thought, the “AR” in “AR-15” does not stand for.)

But would a ban on AR-15’s quell shootings or terror attacks?

Would it, like a well-received rain dance, wash the violent impulses from the loonies and sprout rainbows from the pastures?

Unlikely.

In reality, it’s a tiny, shriveled, used band-aid applied on an incredibly deep and complex gash (a band-aid which, no less, could cause drastic unintended consequences from its use).

It is, I propose, one of the least effective ways of quelling the violence.

Here are seven reasons why.

- Guns or violence? Is getting rid of guns wholesale the sole goal? If so, why?

Those sincere to the cause can find common ground with those they deem as “gun nuts.”

The incredibly vast majority of this country want the same things...

Namely, for the despicable, deranged acts of violence to go away. Most people want to live in peace.

(There are, of course, exceptions…)

But wishing violence away with a law (enacted by... wait for it... more violence) is one of the least effective ways to get it.

Seeking common ground with our fellow citizens is more effective.

- War on Poverty… War on Drugs… War on Terror…

It’s a strange phenomenon.

Whenever the federal government declares war on something, we tend to receive more of the very same thing.

A “War on Guns” would be, behind the smoke-screened doublespeak, a “War on Violence.”

How would you wage such a war on violence? With violence.

Soft power, making peace appealing and attractive in communities, rather than beating disobedient individuals into submission, is a more effective, and less disastrous, strategy. (But where’s the political clout in that?)

What you resist persists.

Channel the flow of energy elsewhere, transmute it into something productive. (Anything peaceful, perhaps.)

- Wholesale bans empower the criminal class and enrich the black market.

Blanket bans in any form are almost always unfavorable to the most vulnerable.

Not only do all laws create criminals (which is why they should never be applied lightly), they often have a way of emboldening and empowering the criminal class through perverse incentives. (AR-15s, for example, become a hot ticket item on the black market. Profit margins go significantly up.)

Incentives which weaken the honest and most vulnerable.

As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching, sagely said: “The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become.”

- The right to self-defense is a negative right -- a right which doesn’t inherently, by its nature, infringe upon the rights of others.

Positive rights entail government taking action, infringing upon individual rights for the “greater good” of the collective.

Rarely is the “greater good” how such interventions turn out in the long run.

Power that is so absolute to have free reign to roll over the individual (the smallest minority) as it pleases is always in danger of being perverted.

“Shall not be infringed” leaves very little room for ambiguity.

- The right to self-defense.

Guns represent one’s right to defend one’s own self, one’s own spark of existence, one’s own life from unprovoked attack.

Historically speaking, they’ve helped to turn the tables on physically strong predators who wish to prey on the weak, meek and most vulnerable.

Like all technological innovations, they ushered in a new paradigm. Each paradigm has its own set of pros and cons.

Each paradigm is also a psychological construct.

To demolish this psychological paradigm for an illusion (yes, illusion) of safety, even just by chipping away at the idea of it, sets, as history shows, monumentally dangerous precedent.

It’s a step backward.

- Healthy homes and communities heal.

Mass shootings, defined as four or more deaths by one or a few hands, happen year-round.

The amount of press one will receive, unfortunately, depends on the zip code.

Local action and soft power are more effective and humane than pleading for more force.

For example, on a micro scale…

Adding beautiful green spaces or community centers to a downtrodden place (park, urban garden, etc.) has been shown time and again to reduce crime in that area.

Getting children engaged in community activities (or, heck, allowing young kids to work) reduces the time they have for dwelling on untoward things, gives them a sense of responsibility for themselves and those around them.

Strengthening community ties allows for individuals to see more clearly who is a danger to the community and might need some form of intervention. (Nosy neighbors are good for some things.)

Although all of this might sound insignificant, it’s not. It’s the grassroots. It’s where the action happens.

It’s where the wild things live and grow.

Violence is always a situational issue and can never be painted with a broad brush.

We are individuals, each with our own individual needs.

Abstracting the problem, then outsourcing the solution to the house on The Hill does little.

It makes us feel, erroneously, that such violence is something which can be fixed nationally with the flick of a switch.

It reinforces the idea that collective response is the only option.

That our energy should be funneled into changing the minds of the out-of-touch political class (who saunter around with armed bodyguards) rather than hacking at the root.

- Violence emerges from individuals. Individuals are responsible.

The Parkland shooter reportedly killed animals for pleasure, self-harmed, acted out violently, had the cops called on him over 30 times, threatened to shoot a school, had the FBI tipped off about him twice -- all clear signs of a compulsive and incredibly violent and dangerous individual.

He was essentially a Jeffrey Dahmer reincarnate. (They both had similar impulses and both killed 17 people, except Dahmer didn’t use guns.)

Where are the parents? The community? The people who deal with this person on a regular basis? (Dahmer’s parents were absentees, too wrapped up in their own lives to see what was happening.)

Historically, communities would’ve been much more likely than they are today to take action and intervene.

It was, for them, a matter of keeping everyone safe and the bonds strong in the “tribe.”

You are, after all, only as strong as the weakest link.

Alas, maybe we’re not as “advanced” as we think.