“Gun Nuts” vs. “Gun Grabbers”

It’s time to admit you’re both wrong in so many ways.

Here we are again. Before the blood of another national tragedy dried, we found ourselves drawing lines in the sand. We circled the wagons around our predetermined biases, seeking the solace of other like-minded individuals who share the same biases. We then began to hurl insults, memes, and other pithy displays of confirmation bias in the direction of our so-called opponents.

The moral outrage on both sides is visceral and reactionary. Comments sections and social media feeds give the appearance that we are in the midst of a civil war. And there is no shortage of pejoratives employed by both sides of this deeply-polarized conflict: It’s the “gun nuts” versus the “gun grabbers.”

For the purposes of transparency, this author most likely falls into the category of “gun nut.” However, despite my tribal loyalties, even I admit that we need to move this conversation forward amicably.

If we actually ever want to establish a meaningful dialogue, both sides need to concede some points. For the purposes of brevity, uniformity, and snarkiness, gun control advocates will be referred to as “gun grabbers” and gun rights advocates as “gun nuts.”

Gun grabbers need to spend more time at the shooting range. If you want to regulate firearms, take the time to get an education as to how they work. This will save you the embarrassment of not knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic, gauge and caliber, clip and magazine, etc.

I have often found that those who are highly critical of guns change their tune after a day or two at the range. They don’t necessarily abandon their political philosophy, but they do feel more compelled to compromise.

Gun nuts should pause and recollect the last time they advocated for a constitutional right other than the Second Amendment. Have you said anything about the NSA’s infringement of the Fourth Amendment? How about the depletion of the Sixth Amendment via civil assets forfeiture? If you find yourself spending 90% of your moral outrage on only 10% of the Bill Rights, you are not fighting against tyrannical government; you’re an ammosexual who only cares about his arsenal of war toys.

While on the subject of being disingenuous, gun grabbers need to recognize their own complicity in selective partisan outrage. If you abhor violence so much, then why do you seem to look the other way when the foreign policy of President Obama or the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton come into question? We drone strike schools, weddings, and hospitals, killing more civilians than all of our mass shootings combined — and progressives just seem to shrug. I’m old enough to remember when you used to call Bush a war criminal.

Gun nuts need to quit with the “Obama is coming for our guns” hooey. If anything, Obama is the best guns salesman of all time: Americans purchased over 100 million guns during the course of his administration. Not being the gun lobby’s biggest cheerleader is not the same as being Hitler.

Do I consider Obama to be a gun rights advocate? Hardly. Anybody who believes that we should utilize secret government lists to deny due process to people who have not committed a crime should be immediately disparaged. And your crosshairs shouldn’t be solely focused on Obama; it should be noted that both Trump and the NRA came out in favor of the Democratic proposal of using the “No Fly List” as a barometer for civil rights. Remember when you got mad at Obama after San Bernardino? Well, I await your outrage towards Trump and the NRA.

Gun grabbers need to stop their fixation on “assault rifles.” First and foremost, the term itself is misleading, often misused, and typically demonstrates your lack of knowledge on how these weapons work.

Furthermore, look at the data on gun homicides. There were 8,454 gun homicides in 2013, according to the FBI. Of those, 5,782 were the result of a handgun (68% of total gun homicides); only 285 were caused by a rifle (roughly 3%). Your priorities seem skewed.

Finally, stop demanding a ban on assault weapons; we tried this before and the results were pathetic. The Justice Department stated the following about the previous ban: “The likely effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” This is because the weapons in question are “rarely used” in gun crimes according to the same report.

Gun nuts need to not only admit that the United States has a problem with violence, but also that something needs to be done about it. While I relate to your skepticism of our ability to legislate this problem away, I don’t accept your inertia as a viable solution. Though gun homicides are on the decline, we can still do better.

Also, it wouldn’t hurt for you to recognize your complicity in the cultivation of a violent America. For starters, you need to admit that our enforcement of stupid laws has inspired a great deal of violence in our streets. The War on Drugs has done little to curb actual drug use in our country, but it most certainly has produced a violent black market that can only arbitrate disputes through the barrel of a gun. Did we learn nothing from the violence we experienced during the days of Prohibition?

Gun grabbers — enough already with your angst-ridden obsession with the AR-15.

And if you really want to ban it, then take the time to learn how it actually works. If you think that you can fire 700 rounds in a minute with an AR-15, I am dying to watch you try and accomplish this feat. Seriously. I will put up the cost of the range fees and ammo as collateral on this bet.

Also, please make certain that Gersh Kuntzman never writes about his experiences at the gun range ever again. With only two articles (this one and his follow up), this cowardly journalist — who equated the rifle to a bazooka, claimed he experienced PTSD after firing it, and retorted that he was the victim of a “gender war” when he was criticized — made your movement look ridiculous. Kuntzman achieved a level self-parody that is antithetical to accomplishing any political objectives.

While I tend to agree with the gun nuts that “gun free zones” have been nothing but easy targets for mass shooters, I am skeptical about their counter proposal for basically guns everywhere. My family owns a bar, and the thought of a roomful of sloppy drunks with concealed weapons doesn’t sit well with me. I understand that there are already laws in place regarding concealed permits and it’s already against the law to handle a firearm while intoxicated; I’m not calling for more laws. Also, I am curious as to how events like Orlando would have been different if patrons shot back. An armed society is also a polite one, but I’m not eager to live in some mythical recreation of the Wild West either.

Gun grabbers need to stop hyping up mass shootings. Are they tragic? Of course! Do they need to stop? Damn right they do. However, mass shootings represent such a small percentage of gun violence in this nation, and yet these events absorb the majority of our public conversations. In 2010, mass shootings (where four or more people were victimized) accounted for less than one percent of total gun deaths for that year. Again, skewed priorities.

Also, I’m starting to think that Malcolm Gladwell is on to something: The more we media blitz one tragedy, the more we raise the threshold of violence for future copycats to up the ante. We’ve created a platform for the scum of the Earth to wreak havoc, capture our national attention, and compromise our collective sense of security. Unless the shooter is on the lam, I never want to see the picture of one of these pricks ever again. I will not exhaust another ounce of gray matter attempting to “make sense” of the actions of these psychopaths.

Gun nuts need to admit that a background check does not infringe upon their right to bear arms. I mean, unless you are a violent criminal who wants a gun. Then it totally infringes on that right, because… well… you’re a violent criminal. Over 90% of Americans are in favor of universal background checks, and I am one of them.

Rights entail responsibilities. If you give up your responsibility to be a responsible gun owner, I think you give up that right.

And before moving on from the subject of background checks, gun grabbers need to acknowledge that they are — like anything we do from a policy standpoint — imperfect. After all, Omar Mateen passed background checks when he purchased the Sig Sauer and Glock that he used during the Orlando shooting — even after being on several government watch lists.

Gun grabbers need to stop using the term “gun show loophole” as if it means something.

A survey of federal and state criminals (conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics) found that 0.8 percent of state and federal prisoners — who possessed a firearm during the offense for which they are serving time — purchased their weapon from a gun show. Not eighty percent. Not eight percent. Eight tenths! Less than one percent!

So how did these criminals obtain their weapons? Most of them — not surprisingly — did so illegally. Nearly half (43.2%) obtained their weapon from a black market dealer. Other sources included finding the weapon at a crime scene (6.9%), theft (6.4%), or a family member or friend (14.5%).

Even those who went the legal route by purchasing from a licensed retail dealer — about 7 percent of the total — rarely used their own actual names for the background check. The survey found that 7 percent of state and 8 percent of federal prisoners had purchased it under their own name from a licensed dealer at a retail source. This means that over 90 percent of these criminals purchased their weapons under a different name to pass the background check.

To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, criminals find a way.

Gun nuts need to realize that the Constitution is imperfect. It also can be, has been, and will be revised. Note the first five letters of the word amendment: amend. To change. To correct.

Though our Constitution is a robust document that defends the natural rights of its citizens, it was also written without the input of African slaves, Indian tribes, and women. The Second Amendment was not written in stone. After all, I imagine a healthy portion of gun nuts have an interest in repealing the 16th Amendment, amirite?

And when discussing the original intent of our Constitution, gun grabbers need to stop being intellectually lazy.

For starters, stop talking about muskets. Just stop. If all of our constitutional amendments were reduced to the technologically deterministic argument you are making, then the First Amendment would only apply to quills and the printing press.

Gun grabbers like to nitpick the Second Amendment by dissecting the words they believe make this constitutional right null and void.

They argue, “The Second Amendment only refers to militias.”

Unfortunately, this interpretation doesn’t jive with the law of the land. In the landmark case of D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court voted to overturn a series of heavy-handed laws — a handgun ban and a requirement that all lawful rifle owners keep their weapons “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” — codified in Washington, D.C.

In the majority decision, the Supreme Court stated the following:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” (Emphasis added.)

Heller does not provide an unlimited right to carry any weapon anywhere anytime, but it does specifically frame who the amendment applies to: The right to bear arms belongs to the individual, not the militia.

To which, gun grabbers then will pivot and verbally cherry pick again.

“Well, it says ‘well regulated,’ so regulations on guns are ok,” they retort.

Sorry, David Hogg — that’s not the case either. In the historical context of when the Constitution was written (uh oh — my originalism may be showing), the word “regulated” has less to do with bureaucratic rules to follow and more to do with training.

Second Amendment expert and historian Dr. Robert J. Cottrol posits that the term refers to “proficiency and top-notch training.”

“This was written at a time when there was relatively little in the way of formal training in marksmanship on the part of armies and usually less on the part of militias,” Cottrol said. “The idea was that familiarity gained with weapons in private pursuits would translate into a militia that could be mobilized when needed.”

So, no — the Second Amendment does not literally advocate for regulations.

Whenever tragedy strikes, gun nuts are the first to blame how we treat mental health in our country.

Now, I will grant them the fact that mass shooters are undoubtedly psychotic, but every open-throated bellowing of the words “mental health!” becomes less genuine with each subsequent iteration.

For starters, it stigmatizes those who suffer from mental illness. These individuals are statistically less likely to be violent in comparison to the general population. Research indicates that socioeconomic factors tend to be a better indicator of potential violent behavior, as opposed to mental illness.

Furthermore, the mentally ill are more likely to be the victim of violence. Victimization rates for violent crimes are twice as likely to occur to those suffering from mental illness in comparison to the general population.

Second, gun nuts sort of remind me of the underwear gnomes from South Park, who lay out their foolproof plans for success as followed:

Phase 1: Collect underpants

Phase 2: ???

Phase 3: Profit!

In the case of addressing mass violence, gun nuts offer a similarly ill-conceived plan:

Phase 1: Mental health!

Phase 2: ???

Phase 3: No gun violence!

Wait — what happens during phase 2?!?

Are y’all proposing more funding to mental health programs and institutions? How exactly do we reverse mental illness? Are you targeting certain diagnoses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? How are you protecting the medical privacy rights of those who might be targeted?

We need details. Mindlessly shouting about mental health while not offering any solutions as to how it can be improved demonstrates how big of a red herring the argument truly is.

Both gun nuts and gun grabbers need to stop comparing the gun culture of the United States to other countries. Gun control is one of the few political issues that inspires American voters to think beyond our borders. Though comparative gun policies should never be discouraged, they need to be nuanced by the unique and competing cultural, political, and socioeconomic phenomena of the given countries. Simply transplanting one nation’s policies into a drastically different context is not an intellectually honest recommendation.

So dear gun grabbers — what happened in Australia most likely won’t happen here. Many scholars who have studied the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) — the comprehensive legislation that instituted the country’s compulsory buyback program following the Port Arthur massacre of 1996 — agree on one thing: Enacting something similar in the United States would not be plausible. A team of Harvard researchers reviewed multiple studies regarding the effectiveness of the NFA and concluded, “It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States.”

As for you gun nuts — Switzerland is not even comparable to the United States. I remember when I used to applaud the Swiss’ high rate of gun ownership and low rate of gun violence. However, after a more thorough examination, I found that the gun cultures of our countries are drastically different. The greater majority of adult males in Switzerland are conscripted into militia service, receive on-going training, and required to re-certify their competence on a regular basis. There isn’t anything even remotely close to a compulsory program like this in the United States. Plus, Switzerland is friggin’ tiny: Its population is roughly the same as Virginia, and covers roughly the same square mileage as Maryland.

International comparisons are rarely apples-to-apples.

As for researching gun violence, both sides need to agree that this field of study is completely lacking. In case you haven’t noticed, data on gun violence is weak. We defunded and banned national research back in the 1990s. We may not agree on how we fund future research, but I imagine most people believe that this issue is worthy of a more robust body of evidence-based research. If this is truly a national priority, then we may need to discuss how we raise the bar for this endeavor.

Until then, this conversation will steer toward appeals to emotion rather than logical conclusions.

Ok.

I did my best to address both sides equally. I even checked the word count to make certain that they were equitable. (In case you were wondering — guns nuts got 1,056, gun grabbers 1,357, and both 184.)

Now, as I admitted before, I have my own biases in this political conversation. However, one bias that trumps them all is my preference for a civil, logical, facts-based, philosophically-consistent dialogue. No more memes. No more party talking points. No more cherry picking of facts.

And — most importantly — no more name calling. We are not a nation of gun nuts and gun grabbers. We are a nation of citizens who disagree on the scope of our enumerated civil liberties and how we address violence in the United States. It is not inhumane to value civil liberties, nor is it totalitarian to be weary of violence. Emotionalism will get us nowhere in finding a common ground and achieving reasonable reforms.

Finally, just recognize the fact that none of us own a monopoly on the truth. If you actually knew what the Founding Fathers intended, you wouldn’t be typing in all caps on the internet, Mr. Armchair Constitutionalist.

If we can’t recognize our own capacity to be hypocritical and dogmatic in this conversation, how will we ever convince the other side not to do the same?