\ ^^ /_

This needs to come out or I will lose my mind watching and reading the online battle over who's right and who's wrong in the digital gun policy "debate".

I will start by saying I am not proposing anything. I don't begin to think I have the answer on how to make America and the American public "safer" in any regard.
I am not trying to win any arguments nor convince anyone to do anything.
I merely hope to express my thoughts and perspectives effectively.
This is what I see, these are my values and this is how I feel.

To save you time and effort, I'll come out and state I don't care for guns, nor do I think everyone should be entitled to have them.

I choose those words carefully because I LOVE guns, but I indeed do not care for guns.
This sounds contradictory so let me explain.

I love guns, technically I still own a pistol. My dad confiscated it as payment for something (I forget what, I think he made that up) before my move to Canada.
A Springfield Armory XD-9 bought brand new. It's beautiful, I cleaned it frequently and kept it in my closet.
I burned through thousands of rounds with that thing at local ranges. I loved this gun. I waited forever to own my own.

I grew up with a pellet gun shooting out street-lights and plinking random objects throughout my neighborhood.
When I was in grade school I would force my mom to take us out in the corn fields so we could try and shoot birds with my dad's old .22 rifle.
I really regret those days because we did end up killing things. Childhood silliness. Sorry Universe

Throughout high school I would frequent K's merchandise and ask to hold some of the handguns. I was too young and too poor to buy one for myself.
I liked the Ruger P-90 for some reason, probably because I saw Antonio Banderas with them in Desperado. They looked cool and came in 9mm, .40 and .45
I really wanted a S&W though for no other reason because they were pretty.

I don't know what it is. Something about the noise, the smell and being able to touch (read: blow up / put a hole through) whatever you can see, hundreds of feet away with a tiny projectile is just entertaining to me. I could shoot stuff all day long. Indeed, I have always and still do, love guns.

Fast forward to now. January 2013, after several years of seeing the aftermath of heartbreaking murder and I am beginning to look at them much differently.
They have since become this "thing" that doesn't quite have the same appeal.
Similar to when someone hurts you terribly, you can't look at them the same way. It's kind of like that. They're tarnished.
So when I say I don't care for them, it's because at this point they could cease to be a part of my life and I would probably feel fine about it.
There are so many amazing things to do in life and a firearm truly hasn't been and doesn't need to be one of them.
I'm 36, I've worked security at several places and frequently been in close proximity to shady parts of some big cities. I'm still fine.
Furthermore, I can't think of anyone I know being saved by their CCW (military and police not included).
As far as I'm concerned those are good numbers. So if I've come this far, I should prob make it the duration.

The issue : Gun violence
I think it's obvious that the gun violence problem has too many facets to address that offering one adjustment to policy or programs fails to account for that complexity.
Mental health, access to firearms legal or not, types of firearms available as well as personal security rights are all difficult topics in and of themselves.
Each one of them deserves significant amount of attention by the public and policy makers.
Below are my quick thoughts on all of them.

Mental Health:
This is probably the most complex and difficult problem involved. The issue spans social and societal paradigms as well as government and private service offerings.
Socially, from what I see, I think we treat each other terribly. At least online and in the media I see humiliation as a means to social mobility.
The popular "FAIL" is a good example of this in my opinion.
The humanity of showing others compassion after embarrassing social foibles strikes me as an uncouth and an entirely forgotten principle.
The argumentative tone of much of the communication I see on the Internet and popular media makes me wonder where our sense of respect has gone.
Despite the difficulty of providing those diagnosed with psychological needs quality and consistent care, I feel a general lack of caring for the well being of our neighbors.
I feel we breed disdain with our on-air and on-line language and that lack of compassion enables people in need to be overlooked and forgotten.
I don't claim to know what drives a person to kill, but at the same time there are certain basic needs that without being met, will more likely lead to deviant behavior.
While it is not anyone's written responsibility to make sure the others (even strangers) in your life feel loved, belonging, feeling accepted, it can still be a principle. It can still be a priority.
All of the things that without make you feel terrible, everyone else needs too and I think if the strategies of sincerely connecting with others is prioritized and practiced, maybe we start to notice when others needs aren't being met. Maybe we catch someone before the fall too far.
At best tragedies may be averted, at worst we garner better relationships with one another.
We don't need a government policy, or a leader to start a movement, one just needs to seek the skills and want better relationships, more compassion, more humanity.

Access to firearms, types of weapons allowed and personal security rights:
I have no real ideas on how to resolve these quandaries.
The second amendment while probably useful at the time, is long since outdated and irrelevant in my opinion.
I think it has possibly done more harm than good to the psychology of the US.
I think the idea that you are "entitled" to have an instrument of death is destructive in it's interpretation and subsequent implementation.
Of course you are entitled to protect yourself. How that is implemented can be discussed, but how it appears to have been interpreted and implemented is this:
You are entitled (by sheer virtue of being born where you were) to posses as many tools of death that you see fit with the trust that they will only be used for your last resort self defense.
I think placing that much trust by merit of birthright is irresponsible and inappropriate. No, I don't think you are entitled to that much power, I don't care where you are from.
I think having that as a defining characteristic of our national identity is almost embarrassing.
I understand there are violent people in the world that do bad things, however I think having the second amendment and it's interpretation as the guiding principle behind how we solve the problem of personal security abandons problem solving for an easy solution.

Problem: There are violent people in the world that could be anywhere at any time ready to hurt or kill you.
Solution: Give me a gun so hopefully I can shoot them before they shoot me.

I feel that mentality is very limited, leaves behind a lot of potential for alternative solutions and makes us complacent in the solution of conflict escalation.

Problem: There are violent people in the world that could be anywhere at any time ready to hurt or kill you.
Possible solution 1: Lets try harder to have less violent people? Maybe work harder on poverty and mental illness as above (which btw, is frequently tied to poverty).
Possible solution 2: Are there nonlethal alternatives to personal defense?
Possible solution 3: Can we invest in better defensive strategies for personal defense? In the case of home security, are safe rooms effective?

I don't know the right answer and I understand if bad guy has a gun and you have no defense you're in a bad situation, but, thinking a gun is the only solution is myopic in my opinion.
I feel like there has to be something else and if all we focus on is the ability to shoot back, that's all we'll ever have is people shooting each other.

It's 2013, over 200 years since the adoption of the 2nd amendment.
We live in one of the most wealthy, technologically advanced and innovative countries in the world and we are still solving problems of conflict escalation the same way.
We have got to do better.
In 100 years if we are a society that has everyone carrying a lethal weapon for self defense just to live our lives, I will think we have truly failed as a species.

The guns in the room
Like it or not, firearms are an irremovable factor in these crimes and subsequent debates on policy.
They are in the equation and in my opinion the suggestion of their removal is not off limits in the process of seeking a solution.

I'm a computer guy, I fix things with logical reasoning so forgive me if I am being too simple here.

If you have 100 people in a room, 1 guy with 1 gun and 1 bullet. How many people can possibly get shot? 1.
If you have 100 people in a room, everybody has 1 gun with 1 bullet, How many people can possibly get shot? Everybody.

If there are fewer guns, fewer people get shot, period.
Yes, this is an ideological perspective that is somewhat naive and likely impossible, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal.

The way I think about the arguments that respond with X can kill, should X also be regulated and removed from society?
Well we do regulate what you do with any thing, you can't murder, with any thing, period.
You can't murder with your hands, you can't murder with your car, you can't murder with your toaster.
The killing part is what regulation intends to control. Unfortunately, that is all guns if used properly, do.
The use of guns in theory, means death and death is permanent which is why regulation has to be strict.
The use of other things are necessary for everyday life, only when used for death can punishment be given.
The logical way I see to protect from a thing doing the only thing it does, is to regulate the acquisition of the thing.
Once a gun is in hand, all bets are off. It may be used properly and with the best possible results, but it also may not and I am just skeptical the likelihood of the former is higher than the latter.

Epilogue
There are a couple reasons I wanted to write this out.
Initially I wanted to evaluate for myself where I stand on this issue. By setting aside time to compose this I had to inventory what I valued and how I really felt on the topic. I think that is important. Not only is it therapeutic to get out your thoughts without being interrupted, it forced me feel strongly in them, to own them so to speak. and to do so requires real reflection. For topics of importance like this I think that is time well spent.

Moreover, I don't swear by any of these. I love being wrong and re-evaluating positions and logic. It's truly the only way we learn and problem solve.
By having these thoughts written down, I at least have a baseline to go by if I notice my position change or needs to change.

If you also have strong feelings on this topic, or any topic for that matter, I encourage you to do something similar.
Not only do you get a chance to practice your writing skills, you may benefit from a better understanding of yourself and your values.

Finally, I desperately wanted to see content delivered in a way that doesn't condescend and berate in a way that I feel is very common online and in the media.
Very prevalent during the presidential election period and during any controversial political period, mass media and online "arguments" seem terribly counter productive.
I would argue they are even detrimental to the viewing/reading audience. Challenge yourself to notice the language and stance many arguing parties take when discussing in these different mediums. I think the major networks are terrible at this as well as most politicians.
It seems insulting and embarrassing the parties you are trying to persuade has become the de-facto strategy for advancing your ideas.
This is troubling to me for a couple reasons. I think it perpetuates this type of aggressive argumentative persuasion strategy that is toxic to collaboration and problem solving. Indeed it feels great to make someone look and feel stupid. It's almost visceral. You shut somebody up with some fact that proves them ignorant and you can't deny the rush. But does that help? Does it help really? Are you more or less receptive to ideas when you feel humiliated and shamed?
This strategy is contradictory to the purpose of a debate and serves only as entertainment, and bad entertainment at that.
I encourage you to look for this as you watch television and read / watch online content. Following from that, it wastes time and accomplishes nothing.
The combative strategy for argument does not seem to advance knowledge or understanding. Minds rarely seem changed and most often it creates animosity.
I could just be consuming the wrong content, but this is what I see a lot of and it makes me sad.

I have been fuming from the things that I have seen from my friends, and elsewhere online (FYI, I have no television, all my content is from the internet) and have been trying to find a way to address my frustration. It was surprising how difficult it was to compose my thoughts in a way that I felt was minimally argumentative.
It's difficult to not let your emotions effect your communication. In person Especially, but also in text.
I hope to have at least illustrated my thought process about these topics in a way that facilitates your consideration instead of anger or contempt.

Here's to a better world.