What a long, strange trip it's been.
I began this blog over fourteen years ago, in March of 2005. I shared my experience with the traditional publishing world, and in 2009 dipped my toe in the self-publishing world, and then became an evangelist for the self-pub revolution.
It's been head-spinning to watch how the publishing climate has changed since I last blogged regularly. Advertising has become practically essential for self-pubbers to keep their heads above water. Marketing via social media is mandatory.
I have thoughts on ads and marketing, but those thoughts will be for an upcoming post. And I will begin to post regularly again about publishing, marketing, advertising, and promotion.
Today I want to talk about guns.
I've never used my blog for political reasons. I'm not about to start doing that. I don't care who you vote for, but you should vote. And before you vote, you should inform yourself about the candidates you both support and oppose.
It's almost impossible to see both sides of something. And it's extremely easy to assume someone is a bad person because you don't agree with their opinion on a certain topic.
Politicians LOVE this flaw in human nature, and exploit the hell out of it.
Be smarter than that. Seek out different viewpoints, not the echo chamber. Spend more time listening and less time trying to shout about how correct you are and how those who disagree are wrong and stupid.
Today, May 21 of 2019, we have so many important topics that need to be discussed. Racism. Gender discrimination. Abortion laws. Climate change. Us-Vs-Them politics. #MeToo. Net neutrality. Fake news. Public shaming.
All of these topics are important.
But lately, I've been fixated on guns.
For as long as I've been alive, America's love/hate relationship with firearms has been a polarizing political issue.
My views on this are centrist. I own guns in Illinois, which has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. I keep my guns locked in a safe. The only time I use them is at the gun range. I've taught my family, and countless friends, how to shoot, and the rules of gun safety.
I also believe that we would benefit from stronger gun laws. Being for the Second Amendment doesn't mean I want someone with a history of mental illness to be able to walk into a department store and walk out with an M16 and five thousand rounds of armor piercing bullets.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
I just published my twelfth Jack Daniels novel, SHOT GIRL. It was a tough book to write.
In it, a diminished-capacity ex-cop has to defend a retirement community, using only her .38 revolver, against an active shooter with a modded fully-automatic weapon and a duffel bag of fifty-round drum magazines. During a hurricane.
Of course it's during a hurricane. It's a JA Konrath book.
When I wrote WHITE RUSSIAN last year, I knew it was a set-up for the above scenario in SHOT GIRL. But I didn't realize how much all of the gun research I needed to do would mess with my head.
It's terrifying how easy it is to acquire a gun. An unstable person with a little bit of smarts can do a whole lot of damage in a short amount, and no other method of murder comes close.
While SHOT GIRL is a thriller, meant to entertain, I also used it as a vehicle to inform. About gun safety. About gun buying and selling. About gun laws, on state and federal levels. I detail Homeland Security's instructions on what to do if you are in an active shooter situation. And I present both sides of the gun debate--I believe fairly--without taking sides.
I want you more than entertained. I want you woke.
None of the events I detail in SHOT GIRL are real. Though active shootings have become epidemic in the US, and around the world, the ones I refer to in my book are wholly fictional.
But they are based on fact.
I don't offer a solution to our gun problem in SHOT GIRL. I leave that for you, the reader, to ponder. But I am certain we have a problem. And I do believe the situation I describe in SHOT GIRL is likely to happen.
I get paid to make stuff up. And I really wish I the things I wrote about in SHOT GIRL were all make-believe.
They're not.
Active shootings are happening on almost a daily basis. My parents, children during the Cold War, had Atom Bomb Drills. Today, our children have Active Shooting Drills.
This is a very scary, and very real, part of our everyday life. And we need to be more informed on the topic. We need to know why this problem exists. We need solutions other than "ban all guns" or "arm everyone."
What we have to do, as a people, as a nation, is elevate the level of our discussion about firearms. We need to listen to those we disagree with, and try to come up with compromises that help all of us be safer.
I wrote SHOT GIRL to scare the hell out of you, no matter what you believe about guns. I want it to provoke discussion. I want it to open some eyes and some minds. I want H.R. 820 to pass in the Senate, and I want people who disagree to tell my why they want to shut down H.R. 820.
Were you even familiar with H.R. 820 before I mentioned it? If not, why not? Why isn't every American talking about it right now?
Let's have this elevated discussion. With our families. With our friends. And with those who oppose our views.
Because if we don't, the stuff I wrote about in SHOT GIRL--an active shooting situation that will threaten almost a thousand people--will inevitably happen.
Jack is a retired cop who knows and respects firearms. A recent victim of gun violence, she is confined to a wheelchair, getting physical therapy in a rehab facility, and teaching handgun safety and Second Amendment history to the elderly residents.
A thousand miles away, a very disturbed individual with a modified 9mm pistol, a thousand rounds of ammo, and a singular obsession--to make history as the biggest mass murderer ever--decides to make that fantasy a reality.
It has been said the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Jack is about to find out if that's true.
SHOT GIRL by JA Konrath
America has 300 million guns. This is the story of one of them.
SHOT GIRL is available in Kindle Unlimited, and is also for sale as an ebook and a paperbook.
Please read it, and review it, and share it, and discuss it.
I'll be back to blogging about publishing next week.
36 comments:
Well...somehow your site showed up in one of my feeds, so here I am.
Some issues I have with HR 820. It's titled "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2019". So, my first issue is with the title. The gun show loophole implies it was an oversight. In actuality, private transfer(which is what the gun show "loop-hole" was referred to) was agreed upon during the passing of the Brady bill.
Many states have enacted laws requiring background checks on all transfers regardless of whether or not they're private. For instance, Washington State enacted I-594 around 2014 and has seen negligible changes in crime rates.
I own plenty of guns and love shooting. I'm not against talking gun laws, but realistically this is likely a feel good measure that won't do anything to actually challenge gun violence.
Welcome back...
Your right about the gun debate. We need to look at both sides, see where each is coming from, and compromise where it makes sense. To make good gun laws that prevent the massacres that are happening now.
I'm going to look up HR 820, I myself don't own a gun. But I'm not against the right to own a gun. But I do believe more should be done to get guns into responsible people with no mental history.
I look forward to your blog once again. Been waiting a while for you to start feeling it again.
I agree with you about the gun control issue---we need a centrist solution---but the main reason I'm writing is to say I'm happy you'll be blogging again. This site is a pillar of the writing community and the wait has been long for your return.
Joe, I had actually stopped reading the Jack Daniels books because of the violence but you make a great case for me to revisit that. And you are SO inspirational to me, a writer, so thank you for this insight and, especially, for returning here - there’s a LOT you can tell us on the sel-publishing & marketing of a book in 209 that we can’t get anyplace else.
My political views have always been moderate and I love intelligent, open-minded debate on a subject, so this bill is something else to look at. Hope you’re doing well & happy to see you back here - we writers need you!
Question: you removed that Amazon royalty widget- WHY??? Will you reinstate it with an update of current pricing/delivery? Thanks
Some issues I have with HR 820. It's titled "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2019". So, my first issue is with the title. The gun show loophole implies it was an oversight. In actuality, private transfer(which is what the gun show "loop-hole" was referred to) was agreed upon during the passing of the Brady bill.
And it makes sense why it was agreed upon. To get things done, there must be compromise and concession. The Brady Act chipped away at the Second Amendment. The gun lobby knows that's a slippery slope, and has seen this chipping away over and over in dozens of laws at the county, state, and federal level. This is also a right to privacy issue. I should be able to sell my shit on a person-to-person level without the government being involved.
That said, in SHOT GIRL I walk the reader through how ridiculously easy it is for an unhinged individual to legally by a firearm, and this should be addressed.
realistically this is likely a feel good measure that won't do anything to actually challenge gun violence.
I agree, to a point. Every law is a feel good measure. But doing a little bit of good is better than doing nothing. There are 300 million guns in America, and they aren't going away. If a criminal wants one, they'll get one. On the other hand, I lock my car when I park. A determined car thief can bypass my lock in 30 seconds or less. But maybe a lock prevents some people from opening the door and helping themselves to my spare tire, or the aspirin in my glove compartment.
FOPA drastically reduced sales of fully automatic guns to civilians, and it didn't stop active shooting situations. But those inclined to mass murder have to either get a dealer license, spend a fortune on a pre 1986 machinegun, or resort to aftermarket products like bump stocks--which will now likely be banned.
FOPA worked, to an extent. For example, the Las Vegas shooter who used a bump stock would have inflicted a lot more harm if he'd been using an M16 rather than bump stocks, which are notoriously difficult to target with because the mechanism throws off aim.
you removed that Amazon royalty widget- WHY???
I saw it in my sidebar, punched in a few numbers, and didn't think anyone would find it helpful. It's easy enough to estimate sales on KDP.
Are you somehow involved with the widget? If so, make your case for me to put it back.
Thanks for the kind words on my return.
Thinking about my blog for the last few days, I realized there are a few big topics I'd like to hash out. So while this blog has always been a time-suck and has never boosted my sales, I think I may have a few things left to discuss and share.
Your car lock is a BRILLIANT analogy and speaks my stance on gun laws/rights perfectly. Thank you!
Your car lock is a BRILLIANT analogy and speaks my stance on gun laws/rights perfectly. Thank you!
The vast majority of gun owners do so legally and abide by the law. They aren't criminals. A few bad apples spoil it for everyone.
But those bad apples are so thoroughly, unjustifiably bad, we need to account for them with our gun laws. How? I dunno. Metal detectors in all schools and public places? Open carry everywhere, and eliminating gun-free zones? (Active shooters love gun-free zones.)
Tougher gun laws make it harder for everyone to own a firearm. I'm okay with being inconvenienced by cool off periods and background checks if it prevents someone with mental illness from easily acquiring a firearm. But I could probably find illegal means to buy a firearm, and so can anyone who tries hard enough.
We are very much in agreement about this. Let's discuss it more in October.
My Dad taught me how to shoot when I was in junior high; he also taught me about the deadly power of guns and the responsibility of owning them. I respect the rights of responsible gun owners but it is way too easy for people to get them in this country. I also have an issue with people who feel that carrying a gun makes them some sort of Wild West hero. It's a strange mentality and our gun fetish in this country is a sickness.
Looking forward to more blog posts. Been missing you, man! I love your analogies in this post, and it's always refreshing to read some actual common sense regarding gun control vs. an extreme position for or against it.
Shot Girl and Chaser are also the first Jack book covers to not have drinks on them. Just decided to go in a different direction from now on with the covers? Does that indicate a change in content/tone at all for this series?
I also have an issue with people who feel that carrying a gun makes them some sort of Wild West hero.
Hi, Beth! My next door neighbor has a concealed carry, and he's the opposite of that. Soft spoken, never flashy, always laid back. I opted to never get a concealed carry permit because I can't think of any situation I'd need a gun in. Want to rob me? Your life is worth more than my wallet.
Just decided to go in a different direction from now on with the covers? Does that indicate a change in content/tone at all for this series?
Hey, Jason. I think the more generic covers and less drink-sounding names (even though Shot Girl and Chaser are both drink references) could give me an opportunity to open up more people to my brand who might have avoided it before because they thought it gimmicky or too light. Or maybe not. Can't hurt to try.
In HR 820, let's start with "Finding #2" being absolute and utter bullshit.
Let's talk about 820. According to a DOJ survey, finding (2), that gun shows are a source for guns used in crimes, is false. In fact, less than 2% of guns used in crime come from retail purchases. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
This is crucial since this finding is the basis for the proposed law. If the finding is false, then the law based on it will do nothing to reduce crime.
What it will do is further penalize lawful gun ownership.
You admit that gun laws chip away at our rights; why would you support legislation that does so without providing a commensurate benefit?
You then say that you are okay with being 'inconvenienced,' then immediately admit that your inconvenience does nothing to prevent somebody who wants one from getting a fire arm.
So why support measures that don't do what they claim to do? Particularly when those measures are far more effective at infringing our rights than preventing active shooters?
It makes no sense.
Advertising has become practically essential for self-pubbers to keep their heads above water. Marketing via social media is mandatory.
Agreed. I'm eager to learn your thoughts on this!
https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2017/10/gun-rights-cake-analogy.html
In HR 820, let's start with "Finding #2" being absolute and utter bullshit.
You gotta give me more than that, Dex. Explain why Finding #2 is bullshit.
In fact, less than 2% of guns used in crime come from retail purchases.
Hi Rich, thanks for chiming in.
2% doesn't seem like a lot, does it? But there are some other ways to interpret this stat.
First, if McDonald's served hamburgers that injured or killed 2% of their customers, do you think it would be smart to come up with a law to stop that from happening?
Second, the stat you cited surveyed prisoners. Surveys, and polls, can be notoriously wrong, because people don't always tell the truth. And perhaps prisoners might have reasons to lie more than most.
Third, surveying prisoners means surveying those criminals who have been caught. There are many more crimes committed than people caught and convicted of crimes. Criminals do get away with it often.
But even if we can ironclad say that only 2% of guns bought legally are involved in crime, there is no reason to not make it harder for that 2% to get guns. Someone's life is worth the inconvenience, in every case.
So why support measures that don't do what they claim to do? Particularly when those measures are far more effective at infringing our rights than preventing active shooters?
Asking for a background check at a gun show is not infringing on your rights. It's making an already accepted law universal rather than intermittent. I don't like paying taxes every year on property I own, and I don't like having to get a new sticker for my cars every year, but I put up with these inconveniences if I want to own property and vehicles.
And as a gun owner, who is legally allowed to sell my firearms to other people, I already have to go through a dealer in order to sell to someone out of state, and background checks are done. Why shouldn't that be the same in state? Surely you wouldn't want to sell a firearm to someone who turned out to have mental illness, or a criminal history, would you? Sure, you're required to ask. But that isn't the same as a background check.
The cake analogy falls apart because we live in a democracy, and elect politicians that can make and change laws. We can even amend the Constitution with additions and subtractions, known as Amendments.
Yes, gun rights have been steadily restricted since the Second Amendment was written. But if the parts of your cake being taken away are fully automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets, and enforced background checks that have justifiably prevented 2 million gun sales in the last 20 years (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/02/28/2-1-million-gun-sales-stopped-by-background-checks-in-20-years-brady-report-finds/?utm_term=.1ff509a8cefa) you might want to consider that cutting off a few slices of cake is a beneficial thing to society.
The people have elected leaders that have enacted laws that the people want enacted.
At the same time, I recognize this slippery slope, and discuss it in SHOT GIRL. We're in no danger, as US citizens, of having our guns taken away. In my book, one of my characters proposes teaching gun safety in school, the same as teaching driver's ed. Some may think that's insane. Others may think it is common sense. That's a discussion we should be having.
Also, the cake argument makes a big deal about compromise, and how those who fight for stronger gun laws are giving up nothing while those who support an unfettered Second Amendment keep losing more and more rights.
It's a bad argument. When you have a large percentage of a population who wants no guns at all, they are forced to concede to the fact that gun ownership is legal. Or course that is compromise. They want something gone, but still have to accept it.
The 18th Amendment was passed because the temperance people elected politicians that agreed with them, and liquor sales were prohibited. People who loved booze were forced to get it through illegal means. An Amendment could be passed that restricts firearms in the same way.
The 21st Amendment repealed prohibition, and there were compromises. The legal drinking age has steadily risen in all 50 states.
Making laws is always compromise. This country has a history of giving and taking away rights, based on what voters want. It's fine to fight to keep your cake intact, but the lawmakers and the courts, driving by the will of the people, can interpret, and in some cases reverse, your current rights.
That said, there are very few elected officials that want to eliminate the Second Amendment. So far, it stands. But there are many elected officials, including our current President, who want to restrict gun rights. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/trump-administrations-bump-stock-ban-set-to-go-into-effect-tuesday.html
I'm in favor of a national health exam for gun ownership just like a health exam to get a pilot's license and etc. The exam would be self-administered. It would consist of the wanna-be purchaser calling up the exam on his or her cell phone, punching in answers to the questions, and waiting to see whether they had the necessary mental health to obtain a gun. The exam would be concocted by mental health practitioners and would, like many other mental health exams, be used to quickly uncover social and mental issues that might need further inquiry before a gun transfer is made. If the issue is mental health and guns then let's test for mental health, not for previous bites out of the apple ala background checks.
John, tell ya what -- You come up with a psych test that is absolutely 100% objective, can be administered on a phone, and is guaranteed to produce 90% predictions of violent activity, based on test responses. When you've got that, we'll talk.
Mr. Konrath, you raise some interesting points.
First, if McDonald's served hamburgers that injured or killed 2% of their customers, do you think it would be smart to come up with a law to stop that from happening?
And we have such laws, and they apply to guns. If a firearm malfunctions or through a manufacturing defect, causes injury to its owner, the manufacturer is liable, just as if a McDonald's hamburger causes food poisoning to a customer. Your analogy fails on further extension, because it isn't the gun that causes the injury, but the person who pulls the trigger. This is easily demonstrated by the simple fact that a gun, left alone and not touched, will not hurt anyone, while a criminal will cause harm whether or not he/she has a gun.
Surveys, and polls, can be notoriously wrong, because people don't always tell the truth.
They can also be accurate. Do you have data to show that the conclusions are false, or just opinions? The conclusion is supported by other studies of other populations. A few minutes with google will show that crime rates are either independent of gun ownership, or show a reverse correlation. That being the case, restricting gun ownership in any way will not affect the rate of gun crime.
Someone's life is worth the inconvenience, in every case.
Do you really believe that? Then let's require all drivers to install breathalyzers in their cars. Let's require homeowners to be certified lifeguards before installing a pool. Let's ban peanuts in any restaurant.
Sure, it's inconvenient, but if it saves a single life...
You personally believe it is only an inconvenience. It is not 'every case.'
Asking for a background check at a gun show is not infringing on your rights. It's making an already accepted law universal rather than intermittent.
Except that's not all the law does. It requires record keeping. Yes, I know the law explicitly states that records may not contain personally identifying information about the seller or the buyer. Except following this will make the law unenforceable. How will a violator be prosecuted? How will the investigating officer know that an unlicensed transfer has taken place? The only way this can be enforced is if an officer witnesses a transfer at the gun show, or the law gets 'modified' to include personal information. And at that point, supporters will claim that it's already an accepted law; we're just making it more enforceable.
Even worse, it doesn't make the application universal as you claim. Instead of doing the transfer at the show, the buyer and the seller can walk 50 yards off property and conclude their transaction completely legally. And the law does not include any other personal transaction. Does this mean we can expect further legislation to bring other private transactions under government control?
Of course it does.
And that's the biggest problem with this legislation. Not that it is ineffective and unworkable, but that it sets the stage for future infringement. And no it isn't just an inconvenience; it is an infringement on our rights to conduct private transactions free from government regulation in order to exercise a fundamental right.
I believe that Voter ID legislation must pass a high bar, demonstrating a significant reduction in fraudulent voting in order to offset the chance of denying a legitimate voter their rights. Gun laws should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, and this particular version doe snot pass the test. The benefit is negligible at best and does not warrant any erosion of fundamental rights.
Welcome back, Rich. Thanks for replying.
it isn't the gun that causes the injury, but the person who pulls the trigger. This is easily demonstrated by the simple fact that a gun, left alone and not touched, will not hurt anyone, while a criminal will cause harm whether or not he/she has a gun.
Do you want the person who pulls the trigger to have access to legally buying firearms without needing a background check? They can, with person-to-person sales, which happen all the time at gun shows. Again, I understand not wanting the government being a part of private transactions between citizens, but if NICS is required for purchases at gun stores, why not have it be requires everywhere? It may not be a huge step to solving the gun problem, but it's a step. And if it saves some lives, it's a good step.
That being the case, restricting gun ownership in any way will not affect the rate of gun crime.
Based on one study of the prison population. Can we agree that more studies are needed? That non-partisan studies should be conducted? That we need some sort of national database on gun violence that isn't supported by gun groups or anti-gun groups?
Then let's require all drivers to install breathalyzers in their cars. Let's require homeowners to be certified lifeguards before installing a pool. Let's ban peanuts in any restaurant.
I'd be okay with your first two suggestions, the same as I'm okay with car seatbelt laws and biker helmet laws. They save lives. Drunk drivers kill people, and lots of kids drown in pools. Maybe we need more laws. Maybe we don't. Let's decide when we have overwhelming data pointing to a problem.
It requires record keeping.
We could debate if record keeping counts as infringing, according to the 2nd Amendment. The government knows we have houses and cars. That's legal. MYSTIC via the NSA was a huge breach of privacy and illegal, and America largely didn't care.
I'm okay with Uncle Sam knowing how many guns I have, their serial numbers, and if I buy or sell them. I understand why others wouldn't be okay with this. I also understand that it wouldn't do much to stop crime if most of the guns used in criminal acts aren't bought legally. But again, more data is needed.
And no it isn't just an inconvenience; it is an infringement on our rights to conduct private transactions free from government regulation in order to exercise a fundamental right.
I cannot buy property without government regulation. I cannot buy a car without government regulation. Are our rights being infringed upon because of property tax and car licenses? Are our rights being infringed upon because of any tax at all?
The fundamental rights we are allowed are because they are what the voters want. And these rights change all the time.
Do I personally think HR 820 will cut down on gun violence? No, not by any measurable amount. Part of the reason why is because we don't have enough data. But the larger part is because a criminal isn't going to play by the rules in the first place.
In the case of active shooters, though, which is what SHOT GIRL is about, most of them do get their weapons legally. And even though active shooting scenarios are a very small percentage of gun violence in the US, this is a growing problem that we should be trying to solve. HR 820 is a small step. So is banning aftermarket devices like bump stocks and auto sears that create automatic weapons.
Let's have a nationwide conversation about assault weapons, rather than one side saying it's our right to own them, and the other side saying their only purpose is to kill a bunch of people at once. But we can't have this conversation without data. We don't have data because the government doesn't gather it. Gun companies don't have to disclose even the most fundamental facts about their businesses, such as how many guns they sell each year. We can maybe figure out how many assault weapons are used in crimes annually, but we have no way of knowing how many assault weapons are even out there.
Dex, I followed you link and agree with a lot of your points, and I independently came up with a lot of similar ideas.
Re: psychological testing before gun buying, there are no such things as tests that reliably predict what a person will do, and any test can be gamed. But I'll posit that the reason America has a gun problem is largely because we have a mental health problem that isn't being addressed. If we can agree that a percentage of gun crimes are due to mental health issues, there has to be a way to test for those issues.
America also has a crime problem, the same as most of the world, and besides mental health issues there are also issues stemming from poverty and inequality.
I wonder if we got our citizens the help they needed before turning to guns if we would have a gun problem, because the vast majority of the 300 million guns in the country aren't being used in any sort of crime.
On the Conversation about "assault weapons" thing, let's start with the premise that the "assault weapon" issue is a scam. It's a con job, designed to fool people into believing that rifles with pistol grips are evil, and getting them to support a ban. The purpose of the ban, was to get traction for more bans.
The purpose of the ban, was to get traction for more bans.
Let's try to get to the root of this, or at least tease out some facts about human nature, politics, power, and why people do the things they do.
First, let's assume that at least some people seek power, fame, and money. Those that actively seek power often fall into a spectrum known as sociopaths. Lots of politicians, lots of CEOs, lots of leader of organizations, are sociopaths.
Humans are genetically wired to defend their tribe, and attack outsiders. It's a main reason team sports continue to be one of the most popular forms of entertainment.
Any sociopathic leader knows that in order to attract followers, you need a common cause. That common cause can be religious, or political, or goal-based. The cause includes a set of rules that brings people together and promises them answers to scary questions, and it sets up an "out tribe vs. outsiders" dynamic.
In plainspeak, if you want to control people, get them angry about something, real or imaginary, and promise you are the one who can fix it.
We all have fears, concerns, problems, obstacles, questions, and a savvy leader can magnify these and frame it into us vs them.
In many instances, this can be helpful. We have rules and laws because a majority said "we want things a certain way" and followed leaders who believed the same thing.
It is extremely easy to get people to rally around a cause, as evidenced by the number of people in the world who profess to be religious. If people are willing to believe things that have no scientific basis, they can be conned into believing anything.
And pretty much everything done by someone in power is a con.
What we decide, based on our belief system, is what cons we believe, and what we don't. And we often do this with minimal or no factual information to defend our position. We believe stuff without thinking too clearly about why.
Firearms have a purpose. They are used to hunt, for sport and for food. They are used for recreation and competition. They are used for defense. They are used to attack. Many of the reasons I mentioned call for a firearm to be deadly. That's the main point.
America has, by and large, tolerated guns. The Second Amendment is part of our laws, and considered a right.
But we have a gun problem. We have a lot of people dying, and getting injured, because of guns. And we don't have enough data to understand the problem. The government doesn't make gun manufacturers disclose sales. The government doesn't make citizens disclose purchases. The government doesn't track gun sales, gun injuries, gun deaths.
Whether or not you believe the government should do any of this is another conversation. We can have a "safety vs. privacy" debate later. My point is that we cannot make good laws about guns until we have more information. Instead we have fear mongering, con jobs, a media that glorifies violence, a social media that magnifies outrage, and leaders who gain followers by causing fear rather than soothing it.
It's all a con job, Dex. People are sheep, easily misled.
In the case of assault weapons, the average person can look at a rifle with a pistol grip, associate it immediately with warfare, and question (rightly or wrongly) why a private citizen should be able to own an AR15.
On the pro gun side, there is no bad kind of gun. Guns are fun, guns are cool, guns are useful for many things, and we have a Bill of Rights that says we are able to own them.
On the anti gun side, which includes countless survivors of gun violence, they feel there are some guns worse than others. I could make a very persuasive argument that there are certain guns which by their very existence encourage particular antisocial behavior. Guns meant to fire quickly. Guns with larger magazines. Guns with higher accuracy. Guns marketed specifically to cater to man's inner child, ready to defend his family and home against the zombie apocalypse.
Stats tell us handguns are the problem, not a Barrett REC7. People aren't robbing liquor stores with a SIG516. They aren't shooting themselves in the head with their AK-12.
But a big rifle with a big magazine that looks like it came out of Fortnite is scarier to the average person than a Colt Detective Special. Enter the politicians. On one side, let's ban the scarier-looking weapons, and flocks of people will jump on board. On the other side, we can't start banning guns because it will lead to all of our guns being taken away.
The sociopaths leading both factions are fear mongering. Let's not buy the lies on either side and deal in facts.
Fact #1, there will always be people trying to restrict guns in one way or another, and some of their laws will pass. This is how democracy works.
Fact #2, there is no conceivable way for America to get rid of its guns. Rest assured, we'll be able to keep ours. We've managed to live without owning machineguns without having a special license (unless you are really rich and can afford a pre-1986 model). I'd argue that law was a good one, because it no doubt has saved lives. And the Brady Act has stopped millions of guns from legally getting into the hands of those with criminal records.
I understand the slippery slope. But the sociopaths want you afraid. They want "us vs them". If you know it's a con, don't fall for the cons on either side of the debate.
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.
Or let's try this:
A well diversified diet, being necessary to the pursuit of happiness, the right of the children to have and eat dessert, shall not be infringed.
Kid: Hey, Dad. You said I could have dessert. You didn't say it was dependent upon me finishing my dinner. Or even having dinner. It's my right. So give me dessert.
Dad: Fair enough. Here's a small cup of Jell-o.
Kid: I don't want a small cup of Jell-o. I want seventeen scoops of ice cream>
Dad. I didn't say you can have seventeen scoops of ice cream. I said you can have dessert. And since I make the rules, I can decide what dessert you eat, and how much.
Kid: You're infringing on my rights.
Dad: No, I'm not. You have the right to dessert. Jell-o is dessert. Go ahead and eat your Jell-o.
Kid: Can I have as much as I want?
Dad: No.
Kid: That's infringing!
Dad: No, it's not. I'm not violating your rights. You can have dessert. You have the freedom to eat Jell-o.
Kid: I should have the freedom to eat seventeen scoops of ice cream. That's what your rule means.
Dad: That's actually for the courts to decide. But let's take a different tactic. When you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. Does that mean you have to remain silent or get an attorney?
Kid: No.
Dad: Do the courts automatically appoint an attorney to you?
Kid: Only if I want one. I can waive my rights. Or I can get a public defender, for free.
Dad: Do you have the right to choose your public defender?
Kid: Yes.
Dad: So you can choose Johnnie Cochran to defend you?
Kid: I couldn't afford Johnnie Cochran.
Dad: So are your rights being infringed because you get an overworked public servant to defend you instead of an expensive, high-profile attorney?
Kid: Uh...
Dad: You get Jell-o. You have the right to eat it, or not. And if I say you have the right to keep and bare arms, but decide that the arms you are allowed must be seven feet long, and can only fire .22lr and nothing larger, you still have your right to keep and bare arms.
The choice in the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted as a right to own or not own firearms, rather than a right to own whatever and as many arms as you personally want. That's why the courts have allowed restrictions on federal, state, and county levels. Regulation isn't considered infringement.
Kid: But if this keeps up, you'll eventually take away my Jell-o too!
Dad: No, I won't. You have the right to dessert.
Kid: But you might replace the Jell-o with a cup of dirt!
Dad: That's for the courts to decide.
My next door neighbor has a concealed carry, and he's the opposite of that. Soft spoken, never flashy, always laid back. I opted to never get a concealed carry permit because I can't think of any situation I'd need a gun in. Want to rob me? Your life is worth more than my wallet.
Hi Joe! Just now seeing the followup comment here. Yeah, there are people who know that a CC permit doesn't mean they have to be freakin' Dirty Harry. I don't have a problem with those people. However, I would hope that they have trained well and often, because people react in counterproductive ways sometimes when involved in a chaotic situation. Then there's the whole "police see a guy with a gun and don't know if it's a good guy or bad guy" scenario. That happens not too long ago, and they killed The Good Guy With The Gun.
When I've gotten into discussions with people about having a gun for home defense (and yes, I have one and have for years), I always asked them if they are prepared to shoot someone. I mean, really prepared. You're gonna have a mess. If you have kids, do you want them seeing a person bleeding out on your nice Berber? And more importantly, are you prepared to EXECUTE someone because they are stealing your TV? Is your TV worth someone's life? It seems like we've gotten to the point where a robbery is a personal affront that must be immediately avenged with extreme prejudice. If someone is trying to harm me or someone dear to me, I will fuck your shit up. But if you want my TV, go right ahead. It's an older plasma TV and I'll get a kick out of you trying to carry it.
1. The overwhelming majority of people with a mental health problem are non-violent. It's true that many active shooting involve people with a mental health problem (almost by definition), but it's a tiny percentage of the population overall. Let's be careful not to label everyone with mental health issues as a potential mass murderer.
2. Mass shootings, despite how frequent they are, are a drop in the bucket for gun deaths in the U.S. About two-thirds of the 40,000 annual gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. The other third is homicides. Only a tiny fraction of homicides are from mass shootings. Accidental gun deaths are down in the noise, but still 10-100 _times_ more common than mass shooting victims. Police kill more people per year than mass shooters. While many of those may be justified (by legal standards or even more stringent definitions), many of them probably aren't, given that the demographics of those killed aren't anything like the demographic makeup of the population.
3. Gun deaths in the U.S. are now on the order of automotive fatalities. Our vehicles and roads are highly regulated, largely because of safety concerns. The government (at some level) is involved in every transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, even private party transactions.
4. A gun, when properly used as intended, is designed to kill or severely injure its target or to act as a deterrent due to the threat of death or injury. That makes guns unlike nearly every other (potentially) dangerous product, including cars and McDonald's hamburgers.
Number 2 suggest (to me) we could save a lot of lives by ignoring the gun issue completely and spend the effort working on improving mental health. That's fine, but let's still be mindful of number 1.
Numbers 3 and 4 suggest that even heavy regulation of guns fits within the norms of other dangerous products, and that those products are still widely kept and used, so I don't think there's any fundamental conflict between regulation and the second amendment. (In fact, "well regulated" is right there in the text.)
What I'd like to see in a gun control bill:
* Fund mental health care and research.
* Fund research into reducing gun violence. Let the states experiment with different strategies and see what works.
* Require background checks on every sale, even private parties.
* Require registration. I totally get that this is controversial based on privacy and the concern that it would make it "easy" for the government to round up all the guns. I argue that the government already has registration of every vehicle, parcel of property, and voter, which raises the same concerns, but we've been okay with that. With more guns than people in the U.S., I'd argue that registration wouldn't actually help them much to collect all the guns.
* Require liability insurance, as we do for automobiles in many states.
* Require a trigger lock (or other appropriate mechanism to secure the weapon from unauthorized use) with every gun sale. (Every motorcycle sale should include a helmet, even if the rider doesn't want it or isn't going to wear it.)
* Tax ammunition and use the revenue to offset the medical costs of non-fatal gunshot victims and to improve gun safety and education programs.
* Some liability for acts caused with your weapon by someone else, unless you took reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized use. If your kid takes your gun to school and shoots someone, you should be partially negligent. If your neighbor steals your _unsecured_ weapon from you car, and robs a liquor store, you should be partially responsible. If your gun is stolen and you don't report it in a reasonable period, and it's later used in a crime, you should be responsible.
Let's be careful not to label everyone with mental health issues as a potential mass murderer.
I'm with you here, Adrian. Two ways to answer. The first is, the vast majority of campers do not start forest fires, but we still need to monitor for the very tiny percent of morons who do. Second, because the biggest firearm fatality statistic is suicide (which I just noticed you mentioned in your next paragraph). I know that a suicidal person will find a way, but suicide by firearm is so easy and so fatal that our biggest concern shouldn't be mass murderers, but those willing to harm themselves.
Only a tiny fraction of homicides are from mass shootings.
Agreed. But that's also like saying only a small fraction of people die after being stung by fireants, so why bother trying to come up with a solution to this problem?
Also, the stats we have aren't up to any sort of scientific standard. We need better methods of recording firearms incidents.
As for your concept of a gun control bill, I agree 100% with everything you mentioned.
I'd add a few things:
Buying a firearm should require passing a competency and rules test, just like a driver's test. And I think this could be taught in schools.
We have the NSA wasting endless amounts of taxpayer money illegally invade the privacy of lawful citizens. How about we take some taxpayer money and have a Federal task force monitoring the Internet for people who profess an interest in harming others? I'm not talking about the FBI swooping in because you swore at someone on Facebook. I'm talking about people who are actively threatening the safety of others. If the people who troll online claiming they are going to do something drastic or kill someone actually do own firearms, let's take those guns away.
Free speech does not include yelling fire in a crowded theater. It does not include murder threats. Crimes have been stopped because trolls and ranters have been reported, but that's passive policing. Why not have an active department looking for folks who are already publicly announcing they are going to commit crimes?
I completely agree with you (on just about everything you post!) when it comes to guns.
See ... disclaimer ... I am Canadian. So what? Well, I don't really get a say into how the good ol' USA runs their house. Not my business.
Still, it's heartbreaking to see/read/hear of schools getting shot up. America is such an incredible country. She deserves better and so do the people who live there.
The idea of banning guns is ludicrous, even to a Canadian! (We have animals that actually hunt YOU in some regions. You need 'em!)
But as you said, to just walk into a store and buy an AR-15 and unlimited ammunition doesn't seem like wise policy.
I've also accepted that the USA will never (Yes, "Never" is a long time) change their policy in any way. It's too ingrained in the culture.
Canadians don't have the same history, so we don't have the same culture. We just don't.
Thank you for all you do. I am an author who has self-published, but didn't really market. I'm trying to give traditional publishing a whirl. What you are sharing is priceless for a rookie like me.
I value what you are doing immensely. YOU ROCK!!
Your fan,
Ian Mitchell-Gill
Free speech in fact does guarantee your right to yell fire in a theater. What it does not do is protect you from the consequences of your actions when you do so.
The right to bear arms, is not the right to go shoot people. Just like freedom of speech is not the right to incite a riot.
Also, the dessert analogy doesn't hold water. Compare the language of the time against the literal wording, and read the federalist papers, and you will see that the intent was to ensure the common man would be equipped and trained to prevent tyranny, even from within. On any scale, from neighborhood to nation.
Now, if that is applicable to modern life is arguable.
But for modern solutions to the modern problems? We can first look beyond the gun, at the other common factors. Again, ignore the guns and look at the killers, not just the shooters. Poisoners, bombers, blades of many types. Look at those who lash out with violence. When you eliminate the gun as a symptom, the violence remains. The attacks remain. The deaths remain.
The problem is in society. It is in proxy parenting and pharmaceuticals. It is in entertainment media where violence is not only chosen as a solution for a problem, but often presented as the right answer, or the only answer.
The problem, the cause, is a morphing amalgamation of societal problems. Of socioeconomic problems. Of psychological problems. The problem is that people are blaming a piece of steel.
We don't have a gun violence problem. Take away the gun and we still have the violence problem. The answer is in solving the latter part of it, not the former.
Post a Comment