Examining The Gun-Control Topic from a Rational Perspective (Part 1)
Polarization Removed
Anyone who knows me
or the content that I post on my Facebook Timeline knows that I have a
very strong disdain for polarized rhetoric, because it's unconstructive
banter that doesn't reflect reality and serves as a divisive
distraction, and thus, prevents a rational examination of the topic.
Like many hot-button issue, many people let their emotions get to the best of them. One can't examine a topic logically in a emotional state. They cave in to content that caters to their worldview, regardless of whether that content is accurate or not. A civil approach to this issue won't happen until people put there emotions aside and approach the topic from that logical standpoint. That involves research and understanding the topic from various perspectives. People have to stop treating there opinions as facts.
This topic is then flooded with misconceptions that aren't accurate of the debate, drawing inspiration from emotional hyperbole or straw-man arguments.
Like many hot-button issue, many people let their emotions get to the best of them. One can't examine a topic logically in a emotional state. They cave in to content that caters to their worldview, regardless of whether that content is accurate or not. A civil approach to this issue won't happen until people put there emotions aside and approach the topic from that logical standpoint. That involves research and understanding the topic from various perspectives. People have to stop treating there opinions as facts.
This topic is then flooded with misconceptions that aren't accurate of the debate, drawing inspiration from emotional hyperbole or straw-man arguments.
Rooting Out Misconceptions
Rooting out
misconceptions is a good start to start when examine this issue. The
first one point is that nobody is trying to take away your guns (I
discount the opinions and views of obscure fringe groups). No politician
from either party is advocating taking away anybody's guns. Their's
never been a time in our history where the Second Amendment had been
under serious threat or people's firearms were under threat of being
taken away. To weed out exaggerated rhetoric, their aren't
"authoritarian thugs trying to create a police state". Most of this
language is a result of people things that their views were "under
assault" simply because their was a difference of opinion.
Second, the right to bear firearms was defined by the Constitution.The right to own firearms specifically is NOT a fundamental human right or a God-given one.Youtuber KnowingBetter did a awesome coverage of this point. Fundamental rights are those that are implied, but not written. If it's written specifically as a law, then it's not a fundamental human right. For example, the right to protect oneself or your family is a fundamental human right. The specific manner of you you defend yourself or others isn't, and is defined by the ones coding the laws. As a result, while defense of self and others is a fundamental human right, the right to use firearms isn't one. It was defined to us by the Constitution. It's not a God-given right either as guns were never specifically mentioned in the Bible. Jesus never cast out demons with a shotgun. While many could interpret God-given in the same manner as fundamental-human rights, the same rules still apply. If's it's implied, it's God-given. If it's coded in law, then it was defined by man. Self defense and the defense of others is a God-given right. The use of guns to accomplish this is not: it was defined by those writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So when people declare that gun-ownership is a God-given right, they don't understand neither the Bible nor the Constitution.
Third, this the gun-control topic is not about partisan politics. As a result, it shouldn't be made as such though. This issue transcends beyond partisan politics, as the vast majority of Americans voters support common-sense measures come from both sides of the political spectrum.
Point Fourth largely ties into point three as people can support such legislation because gun-regulation doesn't mean taking away guns or prevent law-abiding citizens from getting them. If you want to own a fire-arm, and you show proficiency and responsibility to own such a weapon, then their is nothing stopping you from owning that gun. In fact, there was nothing ever stopping you from owning that gun in the first place. If you want to go and get a gun, then more power to you. This makes the vast majority of memes covering this topic moot as nobody was ever trying to take away that right, and you have every-right to own one if you again, display responsibility and are a law-abiding citizen. Most of the opposition that people embraced came from language pushed by the NRA using fear as a tool to manipulate people to conform to their platform.
Fifth, because common-sense gun-regulation doesn't mean taking away guns or infringing on gun rights, that doesn't make the vast majority of their supporters "anti-gun", "anti-American", or "anti-Second Amendment", because gun regulation doesn't mean any of those things. In fact, it's possible to support gun regulation while even being a gun owners or planning on purchasing a gun.
Sixth, this topic is a safety/health issue.
Seventh, the NRA is a profit-driven lobbyist organization. I know that on the surface, that sounds like a empty blanket statement. However, as someone who's driven by numbers and not political rhetoric, I have the objective data to back up that claim. The NRA isn't concerned with people's firearms rights, they only want your money (that one might be a blanket statement open to interpretation).
Hopefully, one refrained from putting on their tin-foil hats with the weird crap glued on them. Since I'm assuring you didn't wear them, let's see these points in detail.
Second, the right to bear firearms was defined by the Constitution.The right to own firearms specifically is NOT a fundamental human right or a God-given one.Youtuber KnowingBetter did a awesome coverage of this point. Fundamental rights are those that are implied, but not written. If it's written specifically as a law, then it's not a fundamental human right. For example, the right to protect oneself or your family is a fundamental human right. The specific manner of you you defend yourself or others isn't, and is defined by the ones coding the laws. As a result, while defense of self and others is a fundamental human right, the right to use firearms isn't one. It was defined to us by the Constitution. It's not a God-given right either as guns were never specifically mentioned in the Bible. Jesus never cast out demons with a shotgun. While many could interpret God-given in the same manner as fundamental-human rights, the same rules still apply. If's it's implied, it's God-given. If it's coded in law, then it was defined by man. Self defense and the defense of others is a God-given right. The use of guns to accomplish this is not: it was defined by those writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So when people declare that gun-ownership is a God-given right, they don't understand neither the Bible nor the Constitution.
Third, this the gun-control topic is not about partisan politics. As a result, it shouldn't be made as such though. This issue transcends beyond partisan politics, as the vast majority of Americans voters support common-sense measures come from both sides of the political spectrum.
Point Fourth largely ties into point three as people can support such legislation because gun-regulation doesn't mean taking away guns or prevent law-abiding citizens from getting them. If you want to own a fire-arm, and you show proficiency and responsibility to own such a weapon, then their is nothing stopping you from owning that gun. In fact, there was nothing ever stopping you from owning that gun in the first place. If you want to go and get a gun, then more power to you. This makes the vast majority of memes covering this topic moot as nobody was ever trying to take away that right, and you have every-right to own one if you again, display responsibility and are a law-abiding citizen. Most of the opposition that people embraced came from language pushed by the NRA using fear as a tool to manipulate people to conform to their platform.
Fifth, because common-sense gun-regulation doesn't mean taking away guns or infringing on gun rights, that doesn't make the vast majority of their supporters "anti-gun", "anti-American", or "anti-Second Amendment", because gun regulation doesn't mean any of those things. In fact, it's possible to support gun regulation while even being a gun owners or planning on purchasing a gun.
Sixth, this topic is a safety/health issue.
Seventh, the NRA is a profit-driven lobbyist organization. I know that on the surface, that sounds like a empty blanket statement. However, as someone who's driven by numbers and not political rhetoric, I have the objective data to back up that claim. The NRA isn't concerned with people's firearms rights, they only want your money (that one might be a blanket statement open to interpretation).
Hopefully, one refrained from putting on their tin-foil hats with the weird crap glued on them. Since I'm assuring you didn't wear them, let's see these points in detail.
Memes
One needs to vote based on the rational
examination of the issue, and not how political
parties, big money, and lobbyist groups tell you to vote.
On Facebook, I
often encounter various (inaccurate) Whataboutism memes. For those not
familiar, Whataboutism is a logic tool that is designed to make one side
appear good by making the other side look as horrible as possible. It
often uses false claims or take the views of obscure, extreme fringe
groups and pass it off as the mainstream to make it's case.
I'm not against political memes at all if done right and/or accurate. This is rarely the case though, especially for those that deal with those hot-button issues. They often choose their sides and promote several false misconceptions.
For example, when it comes to gun-control memes, they often proclaim that Republicans are "Pro Second Amendment" while the Democrats are against it and "anti-gun". I hate to defending groups (DNC corporate shills that are enslaved to lobbyist and billion-dollar donors in particular, like their Republican counter-parts) that I'm not particular fond of. Yet, debunking misinformation means that. At times, it feels like I'm a apologetic for the Democrat Party because so many inaccurate memes flood Facebook.
Examining the topic from a sensible perspective, it's a inaccurate claim as both political parties believe that it's a person right to bear arms. Looking at the platform from a rational standpoint, the Republican Party doesn't feel that gun control isn't necessary while the Democrat Party believes that it is necessary. If one feels that gun control isn't needed from a logical viewpoint, vote Republican. If you feel that gun control is necessary from a logical viewpoint, vote Democrat. In theory, things should be as simple as this (only if). One needs to vote based on the rational examination of the issue, and not how political parties, big money, and lobbyist groups tell you to vote. This is seldom the case though. When are most ever levelheaded?
I'm not against political memes at all if done right and/or accurate. This is rarely the case though, especially for those that deal with those hot-button issues. They often choose their sides and promote several false misconceptions.
For example, when it comes to gun-control memes, they often proclaim that Republicans are "Pro Second Amendment" while the Democrats are against it and "anti-gun". I hate to defending groups (DNC corporate shills that are enslaved to lobbyist and billion-dollar donors in particular, like their Republican counter-parts) that I'm not particular fond of. Yet, debunking misinformation means that. At times, it feels like I'm a apologetic for the Democrat Party because so many inaccurate memes flood Facebook.
Examining the topic from a sensible perspective, it's a inaccurate claim as both political parties believe that it's a person right to bear arms. Looking at the platform from a rational standpoint, the Republican Party doesn't feel that gun control isn't necessary while the Democrat Party believes that it is necessary. If one feels that gun control isn't needed from a logical viewpoint, vote Republican. If you feel that gun control is necessary from a logical viewpoint, vote Democrat. In theory, things should be as simple as this (only if). One needs to vote based on the rational examination of the issue, and not how political parties, big money, and lobbyist groups tell you to vote. This is seldom the case though. When are most ever levelheaded?
Polarization Enters The Picture
This article has
many parallels similar to those covered in my abortion topic. In order
to deal with this topic without letting emotionally charged hyperbole's
getting in the way, people will have to stop spreading false
misinformation designed to inflame public sentiment. Content designed to
divide people even more and not promote healthy dialogue.
Those that embrace polarized views often paint the picture that their are only two options: Either embrace unrestricted gun access for all to your hearts content, or become an anti-American terrorist that hates guns and want to take them away so the leaders can create a authoritarian state and send people who resist you to concentration camps. This isn't reasonable! This language is used to prevent healthy dialogue, not promote it. In order for the topic to be examined, politically charged gun-owners will have to partake in the dialogue as well. (I say politically charged as I can make the safe assumption that the vast majority of gun owners view their firearms as simply tools for hunting and protection, and don't subscribe to the polarized views embraced in this topic)
It feels like I'm beating this topic to death, but one should vote for their party based on a rational interpretation of party policy, and not based on empty rhetoric, which is exactly what many of these memes are. If one votes because they believe that boogeyman are out to get them, they "need to take their country back" or that their are men in fancy suits counting the very second to take away their guns, that person is a slave to fear and paranoia.
Often, facts and statistics are often ignored in favor of the straw-man argument. People make idealized, but inaccurate claims that ignore historical context. The two choices presented by polarized views don't reflect reality. One doesn't have to choose between one or the other.
Those that embrace polarized views often paint the picture that their are only two options: Either embrace unrestricted gun access for all to your hearts content, or become an anti-American terrorist that hates guns and want to take them away so the leaders can create a authoritarian state and send people who resist you to concentration camps. This isn't reasonable! This language is used to prevent healthy dialogue, not promote it. In order for the topic to be examined, politically charged gun-owners will have to partake in the dialogue as well. (I say politically charged as I can make the safe assumption that the vast majority of gun owners view their firearms as simply tools for hunting and protection, and don't subscribe to the polarized views embraced in this topic)
It feels like I'm beating this topic to death, but one should vote for their party based on a rational interpretation of party policy, and not based on empty rhetoric, which is exactly what many of these memes are. If one votes because they believe that boogeyman are out to get them, they "need to take their country back" or that their are men in fancy suits counting the very second to take away their guns, that person is a slave to fear and paranoia.
Often, facts and statistics are often ignored in favor of the straw-man argument. People make idealized, but inaccurate claims that ignore historical context. The two choices presented by polarized views don't reflect reality. One doesn't have to choose between one or the other.
Statistics To The Rescue
One of the most
common misconceptions about the state of society is that violent crimes
are at their highest rates ever. Anyone who ever watches broadcast news
could easily embrace this mindset. A mindset embraced thinking that
their generation is the worst or most violent. However, this isn't the
case, and it's not reflected in statistics. Violent crime rates are at
the lowest since the early 1960's. They peaked in the early 90's, only
to fall again to the lowest rates in over 50 years.
Mass-shootings make up only a small percent of all shootings that occur in this country. The largest cause of deaths due to gun violence is due to suicides, followed by homicides. With that noted, the gun death rates have been steadily climbing since the mid 2000's. According the data published by the CDC, their were almost 40,000 firearm-related deaths (39,733 deaths to be exact) in 2018. So their is definitely a gun problem from a heath perspective.
As noted, mass-shootings make a small percent of total shootings in this country. Most of those deaths are a result of assault weapons. On the whole though, assault weapons make a small percentage of weapons used in homicides. According to FBI crime statistics, hand-guns make up the largest chunk of weapons used in homicides (64%). Most of these weapons were used by those that shouldn't have had access to them, i.e. criminals with violent backgrounds. As a result, stronger background checks would have kept many, if not most, of these guns out of the hands of criminals, which would have resulted in drastically lower crime rates.
One of the common tropes in the gun-control debate is that it would prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and the criminals would still have their firearms. This is a empty claim. Even in countries that have restrictive gun laws like Australia, law abiding citizens can acquire hand-guns and rifles. Yet their are restrictions to prevent people who can cause harm to society as a whole to get them. In short, the outcome is the opposite of the claim made. Does gun violence still happen in Australia? Yes it does. However, it's not that common, and is far less compared in this country. It's worth noting that it's impossible to get gun violence down to zero in any country. It's naive to think that anything can. However, several have the mindset that if you can't get that number to absolute zero, then it's not, excuse my language, worth a damn try. This is a pathetic response. What these statistics(linked to the BBC and Wikipedia articles) do reveal that gun violence in general can be greatly reduced.
With that said, at least in this country anyway, if these restrictions went into effect, it would be awhile for gun-death rates to decrease, because numerically, their are as many guns as their are people in this country. With that many firearms, it's will be easy for someone to cause ill-intent to find one. This wasn't the case with Australia. This is a product of when people buy guns galore when they feel that boogeymen are out to get them.
One of the reasons for high rates of gun-violence is because guns are relatively easy and cheap to acquire. States that ban or heavily regulate assault-style weapons have significantly lower rates of gun-violence that states that don't. Even in these states though, law-abiding citizens can still get guns in for defense or hunting, which debunks the myth that gun-regulation prevents law-abiding citizens from getting one.
Mass-shootings make up only a small percent of all shootings that occur in this country. The largest cause of deaths due to gun violence is due to suicides, followed by homicides. With that noted, the gun death rates have been steadily climbing since the mid 2000's. According the data published by the CDC, their were almost 40,000 firearm-related deaths (39,733 deaths to be exact) in 2018. So their is definitely a gun problem from a heath perspective.
As noted, mass-shootings make a small percent of total shootings in this country. Most of those deaths are a result of assault weapons. On the whole though, assault weapons make a small percentage of weapons used in homicides. According to FBI crime statistics, hand-guns make up the largest chunk of weapons used in homicides (64%). Most of these weapons were used by those that shouldn't have had access to them, i.e. criminals with violent backgrounds. As a result, stronger background checks would have kept many, if not most, of these guns out of the hands of criminals, which would have resulted in drastically lower crime rates.
One of the common tropes in the gun-control debate is that it would prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and the criminals would still have their firearms. This is a empty claim. Even in countries that have restrictive gun laws like Australia, law abiding citizens can acquire hand-guns and rifles. Yet their are restrictions to prevent people who can cause harm to society as a whole to get them. In short, the outcome is the opposite of the claim made. Does gun violence still happen in Australia? Yes it does. However, it's not that common, and is far less compared in this country. It's worth noting that it's impossible to get gun violence down to zero in any country. It's naive to think that anything can. However, several have the mindset that if you can't get that number to absolute zero, then it's not, excuse my language, worth a damn try. This is a pathetic response. What these statistics(linked to the BBC and Wikipedia articles) do reveal that gun violence in general can be greatly reduced.
With that said, at least in this country anyway, if these restrictions went into effect, it would be awhile for gun-death rates to decrease, because numerically, their are as many guns as their are people in this country. With that many firearms, it's will be easy for someone to cause ill-intent to find one. This wasn't the case with Australia. This is a product of when people buy guns galore when they feel that boogeymen are out to get them.
One of the reasons for high rates of gun-violence is because guns are relatively easy and cheap to acquire. States that ban or heavily regulate assault-style weapons have significantly lower rates of gun-violence that states that don't. Even in these states though, law-abiding citizens can still get guns in for defense or hunting, which debunks the myth that gun-regulation prevents law-abiding citizens from getting one.
Links of Interest
Gun deaths in US rise to highest level in 20 years, data shows
The Guardian
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
The Guardian
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
About Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2017
The CDC
CDC.GOV
America's gun culture in charts
BBC
WWW.BBC.COM
Gun violence in the United States
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Crime in the United States
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Fact-checking figures about gun violence in Texas
POLITIFACT
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
How many guns are on the streets in the United States?
POLITIFACT
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
U.S. Leads World in Mass Shootings
The Wall Street Journal
WWW.WSJ.COM
Health Issues (There's No Tribal Politics Here, Only Suffering)
Due to the heath
aspect, this is what makes the gun-control topic one about safety, and
not a political one. New insight would be gained when addressing the
topic from this perspective. As noted, suicides make up the larger part
of gun deaths. In many countries, people who suffers from mental health
conditions aren't permitted to owning a firearms. Countries with these
restriction have far less suicide rates that countries that don't.
One will make the straw-man argument that people who want to die will find a way to kill themselves. In the vast majority of cases though, because the person in question didn't have a firearm present, they weren't able to act on their preference on impulse. As a result, unable to kill themselves, they were often able to get help before potentially committing a act that they wouldn't be able to come back from. Would acts like eliminate suicides? Unfortunately no. However, it would stop most (because statistically, the vast majority of suicides are done by gun) and as a result, their would be a massive drop in suicide rates because people wouldn't be able to act of their wish on impulse. This is confirmed in most statistics collected in various countries as well.
The impact of gun violence in this country has a direct impact on the medical community as well. Those in the medical profession have to personally deal with it on a regular basis and the constant exposure of those suffering from it, or having to tell family members that loved ones are dead or suffering from permanent injuries because of gun violence. A act that was preventable.
Because of the impact gun-violence has on society in general, the medical community has tried to examine gun violence from a objective and politically neutral perspective. Their attempts to examine the topic from the health perspective has encountered stiff opposition from the NRA. Those trying to study the topic (and in several cases, probably seen the effect firsthand and had to deal with the emotional effects) are seen as "authoritarian thugs trying to create a police state" by the NRA. Those who treat the violence are wrongfully treated as villains by this organization.
One will make the straw-man argument that people who want to die will find a way to kill themselves. In the vast majority of cases though, because the person in question didn't have a firearm present, they weren't able to act on their preference on impulse. As a result, unable to kill themselves, they were often able to get help before potentially committing a act that they wouldn't be able to come back from. Would acts like eliminate suicides? Unfortunately no. However, it would stop most (because statistically, the vast majority of suicides are done by gun) and as a result, their would be a massive drop in suicide rates because people wouldn't be able to act of their wish on impulse. This is confirmed in most statistics collected in various countries as well.
The impact of gun violence in this country has a direct impact on the medical community as well. Those in the medical profession have to personally deal with it on a regular basis and the constant exposure of those suffering from it, or having to tell family members that loved ones are dead or suffering from permanent injuries because of gun violence. A act that was preventable.
Because of the impact gun-violence has on society in general, the medical community has tried to examine gun violence from a objective and politically neutral perspective. Their attempts to examine the topic from the health perspective has encountered stiff opposition from the NRA. Those trying to study the topic (and in several cases, probably seen the effect firsthand and had to deal with the emotional effects) are seen as "authoritarian thugs trying to create a police state" by the NRA. Those who treat the violence are wrongfully treated as villains by this organization.
Comments
Post a Comment