Entering the great gun debate

Perhaps nothing divides rural apart from urban more than the ongoing debate over guns.

People who respect and accept the responsibilities when using guns aren’t afraid of guns. Guns are a familiar and accepted part of rural life. You can see restraint (common sense) involving guns here (i.e. empty gun racks in pickups parked in school parking lots or school policies prohibiting the visibility of vehicle gun racks at all). Obviously, criminal violence using guns can happen anywhere. But that’s the way we talk about it here …criminal violence.

There’s no debate among our circles of families and friends. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is as strongly held today as it was when adopted  in 1791 as part of the first 10 amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. For good reason.

But, that said (and so much more that could be added), we all should be listening. Everyone has a stake in this debate regardless of whether or not you actually own a gun. Some say, in fact, that the most impassioned advocates for gun rights sometimes do not personally own guns. Rather, they defiantly hold a sentimental or even patriotic fervor because of the memories of a father or grandfather who did.

Of course, society’s appetite for more and more guns is not just nostalgia. Video games feed the growth of criminal violence by desensitizing our youth. Yet, we stubbornly ignore or disbelieve that the entertainment we feed into our children carries any serious consequence.

Consider this. Researchers during World War II discovered (based on a large number of interviews with combat soldiers) that no more than 15 to 20% would actually point their guns at the enemy and fire. This led to changes in the training process, such as replacing bull’s-eye targets with human figures during marksmanship training. By the Vietnam War, a soldier’s willingness to fire at the enemy soared to over 90% (source: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by David Grossman).

America has a firearms culture in need of adjustment. The momentum for change always burns immediately after tragedy, too often mass shootings. But if change comes, how?

According to an MPA release last Friday, Missouri legislators are taking opposing stances on preventing future mass shootings. A Republican lawmaker has proposed a bill that would eliminate gun-free zones, which include college campuses. A Democrat proposed legislation that would eliminate permitless concealed carry.

In a packed hearing, the General Laws Committee recently heard eight different bills that addressed firearms, almost two weeks after a fatal school shooting in Florida.

This topic is complex. We need to be listening and, more importantly, discerning.

Imposing a ban on assault weapons, as some suggest, is a “quick fix” that won’t work. No one knows for sure how many assault weapons there are in the U.S. today but estimates number in the millions — and all agree that the sale of modern sporting rifles (a euphemism for auto-loading, assault-style rifles) is the fastest growing segment of the domestic long gun industry. So, even if the ban were put into place, what about all these existing weapons?

Another “knee jerk” to recent mass shootings is changing age eligibilities on firearm purchasing. No doubt there is a relevant coming of age factor and logic in the suggestion to raise the minimum age requirement for gun purchases. But, really, when does responsible judgment arrive? Who decides common sense?

Conservatives and gun organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) have held the advantage in the gun debate for decades. But it seems that today’s NRA leadership has no tolerance for even listening — even when our society (and things impacting our society like mass shootings) has changed. Is this common sense?

Some things need to change. Most agree that the mentally unhealthy should not be allowed to pose a threat to the rest of us by use of guns. It seems logical, then, for authorities to have more leeway (not less) to remove or even disqualify the mentally ill to possess guns — provided that procedures are established and followed to assure any individual’s rights.

But defining the mentally ill is not simple. It is naive to suggest schools should administer appropriate and periodic mental health exams, like requiring physical exams when students elect to play sports or requiring academic exams when advancing grade levels. It’s not that simple. The science in treating mental illness lags behind our complete understanding of what it is — much more so when considering the duplicity of those in treatment.

It also is naive to think arming teachers will prevent mass shootings in our schools. What happens when a police officer enters a school during a shooting and encounters an unidentified teacher with a gun?

There is no simple solution, and it seems every measure summons unwanted consequences. And yet, the gun debate is something we must confront.

Perhaps we should first resolve to improve the way we communicate. This requires more effort in thought and depth than what can be suggested here. But, maybe here’s a start.

Larry Swickard is a retired police officer and teacher who serves on the board of directors for the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. His thoughts were published as a guest commentary in the Kansas City Star on March 1. Perhaps you should consider what he pens as you prepare to enter the great gun debate:

There is no class of firearms called “assault weapons.”

It is wrong to lump AR-15s with M16s. To many gun owners, the term “assault weapons” merely signals a verbal assault from somebody about to blindly advocate for gun control … probably from ignorance. Assault rifles are shot from the shoulder and are capable of full-automatic fire. Some possess mechanisms allowing their operators to switch to and from full and semi-automatic modes. Machine guns are typically heavy, tripod-mounted, fully-automatic rifles. Handheld versions are called submachine guns. AR-15s are semi-automatic, only requiring a pull of the trigger for each round fired.

It is not precise to say “gun violence;” it is more correct to say “criminal violence.”

Weapons are meant to be lethal. It is absolutely correct to say an AR-15 is designed to kill — just like all other weapons, past and present, including slingshots, bows and arrows, daggers, swords, muskets, tomahawks, shotguns, and so forth.

Gun control is the hot topic right now for obvious reasons. But it’s good to remember that the greatest danger most teenagers face involves driving vehicles. Assault rifles and automatic weapons are being targeted, but remember more crimes resulting in death involve handguns and shotguns.

There is no obvious answer to controlling criminal violence involving guns. There is debate. We should be listening. Even when we read or hear things we question or even fervently oppose, we should keep listening …in order to become discerning.

Nobody said democracy was easy.