Five Reasons Gun Control Doesn't Happen and Five Ways to Affect Real Change

Gun violence in the United States has created a gap between the men and women and children who live in this country. Time and again we are reminded that as a nation we are certainly not united. I believe there are five big reasons we are unable to affect any change, but we all can agree that the loss of life is never acceptable and something must be done.

1) There are legitimate fundamental differences in beliefs between both sides of the argument.

There are many people who believe that gun ownership should be severely restricted and or outlawed. They argue that the evolution of firearms is not something the founding fathers intended to secure when drafting the bill of rights and that the dangers presented by certain types of firearms far outweigh any possible benefit and reason for ownership. There are a seemingly equal number of people who believe that the founding fathers fully intended for citizens to possess weaponry that rivaled that of a country's military in order to suppress any form of tyranny from taking hold. This group fully believes that Ann encroachment on their right to firearm ownership should be prevented by the language of the US Constitution. The wide gap that separates these two groups is not something that either group is willing to cross simply because it would violate their moral and ethical compass to do so. Finding a way to convince either group to alienate their beliefs has proven to be an impossibility considering that gun laws have rarely changed over the course of time and yet the calls for increased gun control have only increased.

2) There is a lack of understanding surrounding firearms with those who do not use them.

Simply put, the people most often calling for gun control rarely have a significant knowledge base when it comes to firearms and their use. What typically ends up happening is that an advocate for gun control says one thing, not necessarily understanding the implications of what has been said, and the gun proponent is quick to assume that the statement actually means something else. (For instance: "AR15s should be severely restricted and difficult for citizens to attain." Gun proponent hears- "Semi-automatic rifles that accept magazines should be taken away from everyone.") Unfortunately for everyone involved, those without knowledge of firearms often say things that they believe applies to a small class of firearms and firearm owners, when in fact it applies to a much larger group. Additionally, gun proponents usually assume that any mention of gun control is an attempt to take away all guns, despite the fact that gun confiscation is rarely the intent of gun control supporters.

3) The information we have available is contradictory and usually cherry-picked to support one side versus the other.

The number of graphs and charts and statements of fact regarding gun crime, crime prevention, gun ownership, and any other data set involving firearms is astounding. The number of times other countries are mentioned in regards to firearms and gun control is also incredible. Considering the fact that the majority of data used in these tables is handpicked by a person looking to make a statement, one way or the other, it is safe to say that most of the images you see on Social Media are misleading at best. The truth is that gun violence, gun control, and lawful gun owner crime prevention data is tricky to analyze and implement. Data from other countries often is not collected and compiled in the same manner as any other country, and limiting an analysis to just one set of data (I.e. gun crimes, mass shootings, gun ownership, knife violence) typically presents an incomplete picture of what actually occurs.

4) The proposed changes that dominate the conversation would have had little impact on the tragedies that have already occurred.

Since the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban," almost all of the gun control ideas that have been suggested have been repetitive in nature, and many times suggestive of something that is already in place throughout the country.

Background checks- Background checks are required throughout the country for firearms sold by businesses. The NICS system is utilized on a federal level to confirm that those wishing to purchase a firearm are legally able to do so. (As far as the NICS system goes- that is a conversation that has merit.) There are some states, such as Florida, where one person can sell to another without running a background check on that person. However, I could not find one instance in a school/theater shooting where the shooter acquired their gun in this manner.

Assault rifle ban- As stated in the section above regarding an understanding of firearms, "assault weapon" is one of those terms that means different things to different people. A common misperception is that civilians are able to buy fully automatic weapons from stores and that AR15 bullets do more damage than most guns. The truth is that obtaining a fully automatic rifle is extremely difficult and expensive, and something that we don't see mass shooters doing. As far as the damage caused by AR15 bullets, there are bullets that do much greater damage and bullets that do much less damage, but the 5.56/.223 round used by most AR15s is not exceptionally powerful- the main selling point to the round is its versatility and price.

Hardening targets- There is much talk now about making schools safer by creating extensive barricades involving single entry points with metal detectors, highly secured doors, and increased armed guards. Schools are naturally soft targets because not only is safety of students a high priority, but the appearance of safety is also important. Schools that look like prisons are not appealing to prospective families, and forcing students and teachers to shred all aspects of privacy when entering a campus removes all decency and comfortability. Most school shooters are prepared to open fire at any point and campus, and in the most recent shooting the fire alarm was pulled to force students and teachers to vacate any safety behind their locked doors.

5) In a country as big as the United States, representatives will always be "neglecting" 50% of the people they are supposed to represent.

Every time a mass shooting occurs, both republicans and democrats call out the others for not doing anything to represent the people that elected them. Republicans blame democrats for stripping away their rights and democrats blame republicans for selling out to the NRA. The truth is that this country is split nearly right down the middle when it comes to red vs blue, a phenomenon that is witnessed during every presidential election. When politicians are elected by one party over the other, they cannot simply neglect those who did not vote for them, but they also cannot alienate those who did vote for them. The result is typically a body of elected representatives that is essentially powerless to do anything at all for fear of "not representing their constituents."

Finding Common Ground That Doesn't Intrude on Moral Conviction

1) Follow California's lead and create a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

State representatives in California have proposed a bill that would create a new class of restraining order aimed at curbing mass violence. Closely related family members or roommates can file for a restraining order provided that they have proof of 3 things: they must be able to prove their relationship, they must prove that the individual has made specific threats to commit violence (social media, email, text, etc.) and that the individual has access to the weapons to commit violence. Upon the court's order, law enforcement would then be directed to remove any weapons from the persons possession or prevent them from purchasing a firearm until a hearing is held, at which the person can contest the order. The requirements of proof would prevent frivolous claims from being made while also creating a direct process by which these acts of violence could be prevented.

2) Eliminate person to person sales by requiring an FFL to be the middleman in all gun transactions.

While person to person sales have not been a source of firearm access for mass shooters, to this point, eliminating the unrestricted person to person sale insures that all gun owners are subject to background checks. The number of FFLs in the United States would prevent this requirement from being an encumbrance while also prioritizing safety.

3) Destigmatize mental illness while creating effective avenues for treatment.

Every time a mass shooting occurs, mental health is brought into question, further isolating the 42.5 million Americans that suffer from some form of mental illness. Isolation and exclusion are nearly always prevalent in the individuals that resort to this level of crime. While awareness and treatment improve, and should be a major focus in the medical field, decreasing the feelings of isolation and exclusion from society would help many realize they are not alone and need not resort to violence.

4) Utilize the NRA to educate politicians on firearm terminology in order to establish equal footing when laws involving firearms are discussed.

In an effort to alleviate the disparity in understanding of firearms, the federal government, and state governments, should put the NRA to use by educating politicians so that both sides can intelligently converse and understand ideas that are presented.  While the NRA is a source of major contention between parties, it is the foremost expert of firearms with a significant presence in Washington, D.C.

5) Stop expecting presidents and politicians to solve all of our problems.

Ultimately, the greatest deterrent and power to prevent these shootings lies in personal responsibility. While our society continues to advance in countless ways, hatred and fear and prejudice only seem to be increasing. The many subcultures throughout the United States are constantly divided by race, wealth, and class. Finding ways to unite humanity will never successfully come from politicians. The very nature of their positions is a constant reminder of the division that exists in this country. While we may disagree on the best way to provide for the safety, security, and welfare of this nation, it must be a priority of all citizens in this country to recognize that life is valuable and deserves our utmost protection.