Leonard Pitts, a columnist from the Miami Herald, wrote a piece, "When theory and reality clash on gun control, put money on the latter".
In his column Pitts comes down on the right (read rational) side of the debate, but completely misfires in his analysis of the debate over gun control. Pitts makes the continued and flawed argument that because there is a debate over guns, both sides must be extremist and therefore wrong in their positions.
The problem with this [gun control] debate is that it has always been defined by its most extreme voices, its most uncompromising, ideologically pure voices.
But what if gun control advocates got over the idea that getting the right ruling from the right court would magically make guns disappear? And what if gun advocates got over the notion that every attempt at firearms regulation is a step toward totalitarianism? Where might this debate go then?...........
It's called compromise and no, it would hardly mollify ideological purists. It would not make guns disappear, nor acknowledge an individual right to bazooka ownership. What it would do, though, is recognize that ideological purity has its limits.
We see this flawed notion time and again. We, gun violence prevention advocates, do not and have never sought "banning" all firearms, especially hunting rifles, or completely disarming the populace. It's an entirely implausible suggestion.
On the contrary, we acknowledge that there are two equally powerful traditions in American history: a strong tradition of gun control that parallels a long tradition of gun ownership that is not at odds with each other. Having said that, with nearly 30,000 gun deaths each year and an estimated 270 million guns in circulation, we believe we are a country in crisis in need of solutions to address this devastating problem.
Although the gun lobby's propaganda likes to say so, we are not "anti-gun." What we do support is a comprehensive effort to regulate the gun industry and effective measures to adequately address the gun violence crisis in America. Although the gun lobby's propaganda likes to say so, we are not "anti-gun."
The truth is that virtually anyone, except those with a violent record, convicted of a felony, adjudicated with a mental health problem, or with a history of domestic abuse, can purchase however many weapons they desire.
But let's be clear: our proposals to reduce gun violence do not in anyway stop law-abiding Americans from purchasing or owning guns.
Yes, we support cities such as the District of Columbia and Chicago's handgun bans, but that is because those types and class of weapons are used disproportionately in violent crime, trafficked into urban areas, and used by gangs. Again, even a handgun ban does not prohibit owning a hunting rifle, for example, or any number of other types of guns.
Yes, we support regulating some of the most deadly and powerful military weapons available such as cop-killing, high-capacity assault weapons and powerful anti-armor .50 caliber sniper rifles. These weapons have no use in a civil society except to be used for a gun massacre or potential terrorist attack.
We also support sensible measures to reduce gun trafficking such as limiting gun owners to only purchasing one handgun per month -- that's 12 handguns a year if you counting; or 24 handguns per year if you're married. No gun law or proposal is keeping legal gun owners from purchasing or owning guns whatsoever.
We also think that if gun owners should have to pass a criminal background check if they purchase a firearm at a gun store or a federally licensed dealer, then why shouldn't gun owners be held to the same standard if they buy a weapon at a gun show or in the unregulated "secondary market"? The "secondary market" is a major reason why guns fall into the wrong hands.
Are these positions really that extreme?
We respect that Mr. Pitts is writing about gun control in his column and that he is on the right side of the issue.
But frankly, it's quite galling when columnists don't take the time to do their basic research and setup these false polarities on the gun control debate and wind up taking up our exact position to somehow rise above the fray.
We, gun violence prevention advocates, are hardly the flip side of the coin compared to the truly extremist gun lobby that opposes any and every attempt to save lives.
The gun lobby even opposes trigger locks -- trigger locks! -- to protect kids from accidental shootings.
The gun lobby's "no compromise" attitude extends to their agenda to allow air travelers to bring guns onto airplanes, allow our teachers to teach with a handgun on their hips, and even allow college students to carry deadly handguns on campus.
So who are the real "extremists"? That's the real question that needs to be address.
This false and ridiculous binary that both sides are wrong is Pitts' own war with reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment