Talking to Congresspeople about Gun-Control

Some might call my philosophy on guns "extreme." Indeed, I find myself on the far shores of the gun-control spectrum, arguing in favor of bans on all sorts of weapons, offering pacifist civil-disobedience solutions to machine-gun-toting rebels, stubbornly holding to the idea that a nonviolent society is not only possible but the best way forward—even in situations that scream for armed conflict. And on the topic of the Second Amendment, I say let's rewrite it. Why?

Why is the Second Amendment ridiculous? 

(1) It says we all have the right to bear arms. This is all well and good until someone loses an eye. We can't all have tanks and rocket-propelled grenades and nuclear bombs, can we? No. "Arms" must be limited to a reasonable selection of weaponry. It's up to the citizens of our democracy to decide what this cornucopia consists of, both at the state and national level. (2) Imagine a situation in which people in the US form a militia and hightail it to the capitol to wage revolutionary war on the government. I don't know about you, but I am having a hard time picturing a scenario in which the US Army and Air Force and National Guard do not swoop down and nip that in the bud. Force used against the nation, also known as "treason" or "terrorism," would not last a day in the sun in this country, and the perpetrators would likely be sent to high-security prison or extradited to some lonely cell in east Asia well before the government deigned to quote the Second Amendment.

Of course, grieving people want to prevent more mass shootings. In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, gun-control advocates are looking to celebrity victims like Gabby Giffords to come up with small, practical steps that might have wide appeal. I can tell you right now that Joe Biden's recommendations are going to include a predictable list of items like more and better background checks, an assault weapons ban like the one we had in the 1990s (with its many loopholes), and mental-health checks perhaps. These will be steps in the right direction, because they recognize that (1) there is no place in civil society for machine guns that shoot 600 rounds per minute and (2) criminals and the violently insane are more apt to use guns to shoot people senselessly.

But what's to prevent the thousands of deaths by handguns each year—many of them killing or injuring members of the household rather than being used in self-defense? Why do other developed nations have much fewer deaths by gun than the US? Is American culture sick beyond repair? My own recommendations would go far beyond pragmatic steps. Revising the Second Amendment is step one, and shunning the NRA is step two.

Logically:

If people design and manufacture guns that are meant to kill human beings
and the NRA supports the ownership of those guns
and people buy those guns
and people shoot those guns
and people die,
Then the people who designed and manufactured the guns are responsible for the deaths that occurred
and the people who supported the ownership of
and bought
and used those guns
are responsible for the deaths that occurred.

I have to take a step back and this juncture and remind you all that I am fully aware of how much of a love-cures-all hippie I sound like. The point is, I have pledged to call my representative and my senator once a month to speak out for real, meaningful gun-control legislation. So, in that light, I have tried to come up with...

Three talking points for my monthly phone call to my congresspeople:

1. Guns kill people. That's what they're designed to do. We need only responsible, mentally healthy adults who have not been convicted of crimes to own guns. Thus, we need gun licenses and a strict process for owning guns of any kind.
2. We recognize that cars are big and dangerous, so we regulate insurance for car owners. Guns should be insured and licensed; the people who own them should be responsible for whatever mayhem ensues—even if the gun is stolen or borrowed or shot accidentally—gun owners need to take responsibility for the guns in their homes, cars, and offices.
3. Laws without teeth are worse than no laws at all. We need laws that are not full of loopholes, full of lists of gun parts and facets that the gun manufacturers can just get around. Banning specific brands or types of weapons does not help the situation. We need a philosophy about guns that respects the fact that guns are high-velocity weapons created and built to kill people—all guns, not just certain guns, need to be regulated. Any new bans on specific weapons need to come with buyback programs like those in Australia.

I am pretty sure the staff lackey who answers the phone will not recognize my voice the second or third time that I call. Maybe by the 20th time, the office will have put my name on some kind of a list. 

What do you think? Are these good talking points? Do they have a snowball's chance in hell to make their way into a viable law? Or is our democracy so broken at this point that it's worthless to even try to change things. Let me know your opinion in the comments below.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons