Guns don't kill people...but people with guns do

When does it make sense to change our minds? That's a tough question to answer. For many of us, our heels are dug in deep.

We love our brands, our ideas, our politics, our religion, our guns. In some cases, we ignore competing evidence to things that challenge our ideology. We dismiss or throw in the red herring to hide the weakness in our position. In some cases, we just refuse to acknowledge the weakness of our position.

Take for instance the topic of gun control. There are reams - and I do mean reams of stats and studies that reinforce the idea that the U.S. has the highest rates of gun-related homicide and violent crime of any country in the world. We also have the least restrictive gun laws.

This issue is at the forefront of people's minds due to the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT. Lest you think I am gun-hating leftist jumping on an opportunity to further my gun-confiscating agenda, you should know that I am a gun owner. I own a Glock 30 .45 caliber handgun similar to the one used in the Newtown shooting. I grew up with a conservative ideology and have always supported the right to own guns - the 2nd Amendment.

I am becoming increasingly conflicted over my own stance on this issue.

I want to lay a couple of ground rules on what I am addressing in this post. I am going to be speaking about U.S. based gun control. I am not here discuss every other arms program. I am not here to talk about U.S. government morality as it relates to all of our other world dealings. I am not suggesting that those are not important issues as well but that is not what is being addressed here.

I am not advocating for guns to be confiscated from law-abiding citizens. If you get uneasy about anything I say, use that as a reference point.

Changes to Policy

The first thing I would do is change the way that we buy handguns and assault rifles. Here is what I recommend:
1. Anyone interested in buying a handgun or assault rifle must fill out an application that has a clear explanation of why they need that weapon. This application will be reviewed by 3 independent reviewers who must approve the application.
2. Mandatory 28 day waiting period.
3. Extensive background check to include: FBI check, cross-referenced state checks, AND psychological/medical background check.
4. Burden will be on the applicant to prove that no member of their household is on psychotropic medications.
5. Two people will have to vouch for you when purchasing a handgun or assault rifle.
6. If approved, only 1 purchase will be allowed every 3 years.
7. If a gun registered to someone is used in a violent crime, that person will be fined a minimum of $5,000 unless they can prove that gun was stolen from a secure location.

High standards.

Next, I would deal with confiscation. Here's how:
1. I would enact a massive effort to collect illegal guns. I would do sweeps of pawn shops, gun shows, any magazines that allow ads for guns for sale, etc.
2. If someone could not provide a proof of purchase of a weapon, that weapon would be subject to potential confiscation. If that created the confiscation of legally acquired weapons, I would allow that owner to "reapply" through the new process to get their gun back.
3. Confiscated guns would be given to the military and either be put into use or melted down for their metal.
4. Any gun crime would result in a minimum of a $25,000 fine in addition to all other penalties.
Look at the results in Australia when they changed their gun laws here.

Let's discuss the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Constitutionalist have long debated whether a strict interpretation of the Constitution allows for (1) INDIVIDUAL rights to gun ownership or (2) State's rights - in the form of a militia.

The Supreme Court has upheld in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the amendment does in fact protect the rights of individual gun owners to own weapons for personal defense.

However, the government has also limited amendments where it is in the best interest of "We the people...." For instance, we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. And, one can not speak of explosives in the security line at an airport. Just to name a couple.

But, let's think about the issue of a goverment takeover because I have heard many raise a concern about this. How plausible is it that the U.S. Government would, now or at some point in the future, seek to overthrow it's citizenry?

If the President were to give a unilateral order to the military to subdue the citizens of the U.S. (it would have to be unilateral because he would never get the support of the house or senate - OR the military), but let's say hypothetically that that order was issued. Would the military be likely to obey or disobey that order? Think before you answer. What soldier in America is going to start marching into towns like Flint, Michigan or Boise, Idaho and subdue the citizenry?

I not only think this is implausable but I am convinced that it will never happen. Part of the beauty of our Republic, is that our founding fathers set up a system that makes it very difficult for any one person to impose their will on the people. For our government to turn on us, it would require the cooperation and support of the President, the Congress, the state goverments, the military, the state National Guards, etc. Not likely.

Newtown, CT  and Knee-jerk reactions

Some folks get uneasy when we talk about things like gun control after events like Newtown. I understand that. But, the fact is that people are far more open to change in times like this than they would ever be otherwise. I did not expect to be blogging this week about gun control. In fact, I posted a pro-gun ownership photo on my facebook page just last week (that my Canadian brother in law challenged).

If Adam Lanza's mother was subject to my process above, would she have had 6 guns in the house? Many people say that a person like Adam Lanza would have found a way to get guns. That is speculation. I think it is just as likely that he may have just hung himself - none of us knows for sure.

I realize that it is a simplification to suggest that poor gun control is the only contributing factor in cases like this. I know there are many other factors and moving parts. There is a serious problem in this country with mental illness and how we deal with that issue as well. In this blog though, I am focused on the gun control piece and I want us to look at gun control from a bigger picture perspective.

Over the next several weeks, you will see the typical rhetoric from both sides...guns don't kill people and guns are terrible. You will see pundits write articles trying to assert that violent crime happens in other places too or that crime in the wild wild west days was much worse.

Whether or not those positions are valid is not of interest to me. What I am forced to do in this time and place is to make a judgment about what I believe and how I am going to act on that belief? What if anything will I submit as my response to this crisis? That is what I have tried to lay out here. Is it perfect? No. Is it even adequate? I am not sure. Will it prevent one single violent gun crime? I have no idea. But, I refuse to do nothing so I submit these ideas to you as a possible solution to some of the challenges related to gun crime.

Here are some stats:

Handguns killed 10,728 people in the U.S, last year. Let's compare that to 48 people in Japan, 8 people in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada, 58 in Israel, 21 in Sweden and 42 in West Germany.

Read those numbers again.

We have the most permissive gun laws in the world and we have the highest rate of gun related homicides in the world.

So, my mind is changing.

How about yours?