If you read my blog at all, you already realize that in addition to being generally awesome, I'm about as conservative as you could ask for. I'm a drinking, meat grilling, cigar smoking, shooting, kind of conservative.
However, I have lots of very good friends who are not. I love them. They are great friends. Some of them are lifelong friends from childhood, some are from law school, and some are from the last few years. The thing is, when you actually get to know people, politics matters very little. Seriously. Very. Little. There's much more to life than politics and economic theory. College football for one. Also, for instance: drinking, grilling, and shooting. Did I mention college football?
One of the worst things about our terribly bitter political system is that it drives a wedge between folks who otherwise are great friends. I hope that I haven't lost any friends because I put my politics out there. Part of that is the lawyer in me who loves the back and forth of the argument. But anyway, I digress.
One of my dearest friends is a very committed Democrat. He's got a big heart, and he's a great drinking buddy. I met him in law school, and he learned to tie a bow-tie from yours truly. Anyway, he asked me what my thoughts are on the gun control bill dying in the Senate:
Would love your thoughts on the bill getting defeated yesterday. I actually do not disagree that much that the bill would have done little to actually prevent crime, but thought that something was better than nothing...
-Bryan's Great Friend from Law School
Well, here goes.
First, I think the fundamental flaw in the bill was the process. Think about it for a moment. Essentially, the Senate was presented with a bill that two Senators came up with, and it was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The bill didn't go through a committee, it didn't have experts testify, and it didn't have time to get input from other Senators (who were needed).
One thing I've learned from life experience is that when people participate in something, they buy into it, and they want it to succeed. For instance, if you throw a party, if you ask people to bring things that are fundamental to the party, they have a little "ownership" of the party, and they want it to be a hit.
The same thing applies here. The problem with this bill was that it didn't really do much good to stop any actual gun violence. Even the people pushing the bill admitted that. So obviously, the opposition said: What's the damn point of voting YEA for this bill when there's going to be a big negative consequence? Why should a Senator risk his political career (which is what they really care about) when they know that (1) the bill isn't really going to do much good; and (2) the bill will likely die in the House?
But it all had to happen so fast. Right now! What was the damn rush? They should have done this slowly, through committee, and gotten people on board to refine it, to help craft a good bill that would actually do good things and not piss off gun owners who aren't part of the problem.
What this bill did was simply require more sales to go through FFLs. That's basically it. Not all sales, but more. And they ham-handed way they defined things boggles my mind, because I actually know how internet gun sales and gun show sales work. I've actually bought
a sweet little gun "on the internet". Guess what? I had to go through a background check.
So, the process was bad. If it had gone through some more Senators, the bill would be different. It would have probably have made sense. The gun control folks don't really understand the best way to deal with guns and gun violence because it's not something they understand. I don't mean that as an insult - it's just not their area of expertise. I wouldn't try to tell an engineer how to best regulate a bridge from falling down. On the contrary, I would listen to his recommendations. The thing is, you don't need the votes from the anti-gun democrats. You've already got those votes in the bag. What you need is votes from the people who are pro-gun. From folks like me.
What didn't help was demonizing people like me. When you tell people who disagree with your idea that
they're aiding murder, you're not going to win many allies. It's the old thing that my mother used to tell me:
You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Unfortunately, the President and the gun-control folks decided to pour vinegar on the whole thing from the outset.
If you watched
the President's reaction to the defeat of the gun control bill, you would notice that he never acknowledges the other side is doing anything in good faith. He simply accused them of playing politics and outright lying. That doesn't really rally me to his cause.
So what's an "actual solution"? There's a few things I would do.
1. Get rid of "Gun Free Zones". Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
In all honesty I don't think that anyone actually believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that. It's like believing in the tooth fairy.
The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.
2. Mental Health Issues. Make it easier to commit people to mental institutions. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but that's a solution to taking unstable, crazy people out of the public. Not everyone is able to take a Xanax and be fine. This is a biggie, and it's complicated, messy, and that's why no one wants to talk about it.
3. Background Checks. Keep them the way they are for the most part. If you buy a gun from a store, on the internet from a store, or from a dealer at a gun show, you go through a background check. Private sales (From me to my law school friends, for instance) are not regulated any more than selling shoes are regulated. If you could give the good guys a way to easily check someones's background, they would do it. Make the federal database checkable in an easy internet portal, where you pay $5 or some kind of de minimus fee to check a person through the federal database (which needs to be updated all the time). How to enforce this is the real problem, though. Making folks keep records isn't going to work. Registering the guns isn't going to work. If we can figure out the enforcement for that kind of a system, we'll be on the right track. Getting the input from gun folks would be a first step. Above all others, gun guys want gun owners to be responsible people.
Keep in mind, none of these points are a panacea. Just my suggestions for how to get things going. In any event, the key to all this is to keep a dialogue going between the folks on the left and right. When we accuse the other side of bad faith, we're just throwing a wrench into the gears. We all need to pull together on this.
