Gun "Debate"...More Like Adult Shouting Contest

There are a handful of issues in the United States that have dilapidated into petty skirmishes akin to children bickering on the school yard. The gun debate follows this line of thought. Rarely have I witnessed such asinine perspectives. Both sides have flooded the nation with their propaganda, and neither seem willing to find common ground. This theme, unfortunately, is all to common throughout today's polarized society.

First and foremost, my biggest issue with this topic is the preconceived notion that you are either completely for or against guns. Follow the media and the politicians to see the absolutism in full effect. If you bring up gun control, then you are automatically anti-Second Amendment. If you like guns, then you are some nut who's a danger to society. No one thinks grey. It's all black and white. You cannot create an honest and open debate if you automatically assume what your opponents are thinking. 

Won't someone think of the children.

Fueling this trend is the propaganda. Gun control advocates never hesitate to throw victims of violence to the forefront of their message. President Obama surrounded himself with those effected by the Sandy Hook shooting while pushing for new legislation. Michael Bloomberg, and the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, do the same ad after ad. Rarely do these statements dig deep into the issue. It is an attempt to blind the viewer with emotion. This emotional trap, however, is the only thing that truly annoys me from the pro gun control side.

Leading the opposition is the ever powerful NRA. This organization is loaded with cash, caters to a small percentage of the populace, and flexes their political muscle frequently. They are not shy about their position, and openly threaten politicians who disagree. They even have a rating system to indicate which leaders are fighting their battles that directly determines how much money the NRA contributes to future campaigns. Often spokesmen for the organization mock those who oppose their policies because they have the power to put pro gun advocates into government. The NRA's influence and power gives it the ability to push arguments that would sink faster then an anvil in an academic debate.


Pro gun groups love to blame everything but the weapon for national atrocities. Videogames, Hollywood, mental health, and more are the culprits. I'm not denying that some of these contribute to violence in our society. Mental health in particular seems to be a huge issue as many of the recent mass shootings indicate. Unfortunately, the vast availability of firearms enable these ill individuals, if they so desire, to easily cause greater damage. This topic highlights the problems with our current mental health system in addition to the dangers of having millions of guns across the country.

The other culprits seem at best indirectly involved with gun violence. Yes movies and videogames glorify guns, are incredibly violent, and can influence your behavior to a degree. Yet the studies in favor of the NRA's thesis have been widely debunked. Currently there's no direct link between these medians and gun violence.

The advocates in favor of firearms call foul on these critiques  They claim ideas counter to their own are funded by the giant coffers of the entertainment industry, and can't be trusted. There are two wealthy sides fighting to cover their own assets. Who are you going to believe? The Hollywood millionaires, or the NRA? Both sides glorifies the use of guns. Only one side produces the actual product, and protects ownership.

Wayne LaPierre

Another talking point for the NRA is arming more people. After Sandy Hook their CEO, Wayne LaPierre, suggested arming teachers. His classic line of late is, "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun. Is a good guy with a gun." Let's roll with this idea. 

Who exactly is this good guy? A cop? Teacher? Perhaps an armed civilian? Which would you prefer in a public shootout? Currently most people don't have to go through the proper training necessary to use a gun in a crisis. This has the potential to be extremely dangerous. Friendly fire is no joke. Just ask a veteran. 

To prevent a populace of untrained armed civilians perhaps we should take a page from Israel. Make everyone serve in the National Guard for two years. This will provide the needed training, and having people serve in the military rings truer to the full text of the Second Amendment. 

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.

When the next mad men goes on a shooting spree we can respond with a nation of soldiers. We could even give everyone a gun when they leave the military. Thus ensuring the safety of our armed nation. 

Obviously not everyone is going to want to sign up for mandatory service in the National Guard. This is only a suggestion to ensure gun owners are able to act accordingly during a crisis. I'm positive that other solutions exist. Just as I'm positive untrained gun owners can be just as dangerous as the criminals they are trying to stop.

Probably the most asinine argument put worth by firearm advocates is the need to resist a tyrannical government. When I first heard this I thought it was a bad joke. Next you'll be hearing justification for gun ownership because of the pending zombie apocalypse. The United States spends more money on the military then the next twelve nations combined. Shotguns and hunting rifles won't do jack shit against fighter jets, helicopters, and tanks. Look at the incident in Waco, Texas if you want a semi-recent example of how futile it would be to fight the US armed forces.


In closing I will bring up one last topic of interest--Australia. In 1996 the government passed the National Agreement on Firearms. Many of the rules can be found in America with a few exceptions. Self-defense, for example, is not an acceptable reason for issuing a license to buy a gun. Also the types of guns you can own are very strict, and the government issued a buy back program for banned weapons. The results of this legislation is as controversial as any topic related to gun violence, but one statistic stands out to me. Australia has had zero mass shootings since the law has gone into effect. 

Can we eliminate all gun violence in America? No. Can we stop mass shootings? According to

Australia the answer is yes. This is a complicated issue that has no silver bullet solution. The problem is we won't reach a solution at all if we don't try anything, and are generally unwilling to work together on this topic. 

The examples above are just a taste of the whole argument. There's a lot more to this then what's been written in one blog post. I didn't go into detail about any of the recent legislation put forth to reduce the legal size of clips, increase background checks, and ban assault weapons. I'm not entirely sure more legislation is needed on gun control, and would rather focus on enforcing and/or reanalyzing the current laws. Also, I didn't provide a comprehensive pro/con list. I only mentioned topics I found interesting or asinine.

The Sixteen Percent

Registered voters in the city of Los Angeles comes to 1.8 million. Voter turnout for the most recent March 5th, 2013, election was 16%. That's 288,000 people that have made major decisions that effect your future.* Even if the numbers are off by a few thousand, or even hundreds of thousands, I can confidently proclaim my utter disappointment with non-voting Angelenos.

This election will directly effect my neighbors lives. Top positions were up for grabs in this city ranging from mayor and city council candidates to the board of education. If you have a child in a public school. If you drive on a street with pot holes. If you live in a city where you question development projects and the allocation of money. If you complain about your home town in anyway, and didn't vote, then please take a look in the mirror before you start bitching to the rest of us.

How difficult is voting? Mail in ballots ensures even the laziest of voters can do their civic duty. Polling places are abundant, and open for thirteen hours on election day. News can be obtained from a variety of sources. Voting guides are sent to all who are registered. That's not even taking into account the barrage of advertisement accomplished by the candidates.

Los Angeles mayor candidates: Only two remain. 

Local politics have a greater impact on your day-to-day lives then anyone in Washington. Fire. Police. Medical emergency response. Water and power. Construction. Education.** These are civic services we all see or use frequently. Why wouldn't you want a say in how they operate, and vote for the local leaders of these organizations?

Personally I think it's pretty pathetic given how important this city is to the nation and the world at large. Perhaps we're too cool for school. Too hip for politics. Or maybe we just don't give a fuck. Either way this city has numerous problems, and the leaders of tomorrow have been dictated by 16% of the voting populace. Democracy for the few at the expense of the many.***




*Throughout this post the use of "you," "your,", and "we," refer to registered voters in the city of Los Angeles.

**From NPR: "The results are worse for the two educational races -- LAUSD and L.A. Community College District -- the turnout there hovered in the 6 to 7 percent range."

***Almost feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy for the conspiracy minded individual.