Gun Violence & the Question of Reasonable Gun Control Measures Heats Up Again

The question of gun control is dominating once again. Reasonable people are asking why some limited measures cannot be taken to restrict the completely free access to guns that some people want, unconditionally.

Of course, some are answering that this would infringe on their right to bear arms, as clearly guaranteed by the second amendment.

They ask, why restrict good and responsible gun owners? That was the question that this guy in the video below asked. Also, this guy added that Chicago has some of the most serious gun violence in the country, despite having also some of the toughest gun control laws.

Now, I am not a huge fan of President Obama, and do not think of his as this super-enlightened president, and standard bearer of excellence in the White House, the way that some people seem to remember him these days.

However, I do believe that President Obama answered the first part of that question quite well in the video below (although he did not seem to answer the second question, which I will get to after the video. Take a look:

Now, to answer that second question, there is an easy answer as to why gun violence is so prominent in Chicago and other American cities (such as Newark, which I have heard referred to as the "gun capital of the world," although that might be a  New Jersey exaggeration).

Here is my answer to that one: gun laws are very lax in numerous states, and it is very easy to cross state borders without a problem, at least throughout the lower 48 states. So, that should explain that one. Frankly, I am tired of hearing that argument, because this fact seems so obvious to me as to not be worth even mentioning. Frankly, I do not get how some people still seem incapable of understanding this. 

I was listening yesterday to some arguments on NPR's "The Takeaway" regarding the gun debate, and they had some people respond. One man on the radio answered "Never!" vehemently, suggesting that taking action to restrict the gun laws against all gun owners based on the actions of one lunatic should then mean that there should be increased measures on monitoring Muslims, because of the actions of a few Islamic fundamentalist lunatics. But, he said, you cannot mention that, because then you will be regarded as a racist.

This argument and line of thinking hit me for a split second, and I was surprised by this particular argument, which I had not heard direct comparisons before. 

However, after thinking about it for a minute or so, the answer as to why those two things do not correlate seemed simple enough. Muslims generally are born Muslims, and often face discrimination, as they are lumped in with Islamic fundamentalists, and particularly those who take militant action that we would define as terrorism. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is a decision, and purchasing one (or more than one) is an action, and as such, it can be judged. In fact, it should be judged, based on someone's background. If somebody has a terrorist background, or some kind of violent and/or criminal background, or has shown signs of mental instability, then it seems to me that it becomes a public safety issue, because guns are not toys. After all, we have freedom of speech (supposedly), yet most people seem to feel that there is the necessity to protect against hate speech. 

It seems obvious to me that there would be at least this necessity to protect against hateful and violent actions, because in many cases (such as with automatic weapons), guns serve only one real purpose, and that would be to kill. You could say that they can act as a deterrent, but they rely on that because they have the power to kill. And really, that brings us back to killing being their only purpose. 

Which means, to me, that we NEED responsible, reasonable measures to restrict free access to guns, without serious background checks, or without taking into consideration violent and/or criminal and/or terrorist backgrounds as an limitation. 

This will be a topic that I will visit again soon.