For the last couple weeks, Mark Andersen has been trying to promote a dialogue on the Front Page about reasonable gun control. From the start, I want to be clear that i genuinely applaud his efforts. He's giving it an honest try, and perhaps he is even right in his approach. Mainly he's asking folks to be reasonable on both sides of the debate. That is, focus on what can be done, not pie in the sky ideas
There is one issue, however, that I must disagree with. Mark says...
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the unreasonable arguments made by gun control advocates. Stop saying you are coming for their guns. I know you are passionate about this, but it is just not realistic. There are solutions to the problem of gun violence in America. Saying you want to take guns away from them only stokes the fears of gun owners and serves to close down any reasonable discussion.
In essence, Mark is laying a ground rule that "taking their guns' is unreasonable at the outset, and has no place in the discussion.
I beg to differ.
The simple truth is that far more people die by guns in the US than in any otherindustrialized country.
We have the same mental health problems, we have the same media and video games, we have the same disgruntled youth...so why do we have so many more gun deaths? Simple, we have so many more guns.
Studies have shown a very clear relationship between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths. This is clear both internationally...
and nationally in terms of gun deaths in
US states...
Given these facts, there is only one obvious course of action that can reduce the number of US gun fatalities...reduce the number of guns in the US--and that means taking at least some of them.
My point here is to say something clearly...reducing the number of weapons to reduce the number of gun deaths (both homicides and suicides) is not only reasonable...it is the only reasonable way that has been demonstrated by the data.
American gun owners who want to keep their weapons while honestly trying to keep their guns are working in uncharted territory. There is no data, there are no systems, and there is no guarantee of success. What is truly weird and unreasonable is the idea that we could reduce gun deaths without reducing the number of guns. I am open to American gun owners trying, and will support pretty much every gun control measure they propose.
But the fact is, less guns equals less gun deaths. And anyone who declares that idea "unreasonable" or who asks that others "stop saying they are coming for your guns" is not being reasonable...they are being willfully unreasonable.
I respect Mark, but on this issue he has declared as unreasonable the only system to reduce gun deaths that has ever been shown to work. And I will not be chastised and ignored because I choose to argue and support what is a very reasonable position. In my eyes, Mark's attempt to have a rational discussion of guns in America looks pretty much like the "No Labels" crowd or other centrist pundits who want to say both sides sides have a point.
The facts lie elsewhere. If there is a reasonable position, it is that a reduction in gun deaths requires a reduction in the number of guns. The weird, unlikely or unreasonable idea is that there is some way to signifiacntly reduce gun deaths to the level of our international peers without reducing the number of guns. Yet Mark, in the groundrules for his dialogue expressly rules the latter "reasonable" and the former "unreasonable"
I do not, therefor, see the "reason" for his dialogue.
PS For those who are going to say something about this being a call out diary--call outs only refer to diary titles and do not apply to Front Page diarists.