CaptainRon

Oh, this is nice and simplistic. Just like so many political talking points. Just enough to wedge an idea into your brain during the half-second you spend doomscrolling, without requiring you to actually think about it. Unfortunately, as with most things in real life, the actual issue is considerably more complicated than this cheap little meme would have you believe. First, let me make something absolutely clear: I have no problem whatsoever with Democrats, or anyone else, wearing pins to remember murdered children. I think that's a perfectly decent thing to do. It's the rest of the framing I find absolutely disgusting. Now, I'm going to moderate myself here, because this is one of those subjects that ordinarily makes me spitting mad. I'm going to make a conscious effort to remain civil and stick to the facts. Let's start with the basic premise: "If we banned guns, children wouldn't die in school shootings." It's one of those ideas that sounds perfectly reasonable if you devote three brain-thought tokens to it. Unfortunately, the more tokens you spend examining it, the murkier things become. Let's talk about prohibition. Restricting access to something dangerous can certainly reduce access to it. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the assumption that restricting the object necessarily solves the underlying problem. Consider illegal drugs. We've been restricting and prohibiting various drugs for more than a century. We got particularly serious about enforcement under Nixon, when the modern War on Drugs began. Has it eliminated illegal drug use? Of course not. Drug-use trends have risen and fallen over the decades. Certain substances have declined in popularity, while others have become more prevalent. But after more than fifty years of aggressive enforcement, we still have an enormous illegal drug market. We've created some rather spectacular unintended consequences along the way. The illegal drug trade is enormously profitable precisely because it's illegal. That profitability helps sustain international cartels, organized crime, and violent street gangs. People suffering from addiction face stigma and the possibility of criminal prosecution, which can discourage them from seeking help. Criminal records can make employment and rebuilding a life considerably harder. Drugs themselves become more dangerous when they're manufactured and distributed outside any legitimate system of quality control. Now, I'm a recovering drug addict. I know firsthand how destructive addiction can be. I also know firsthand that someone determined to obtain an illegal substance can be quite difficult to stop. Look at marijuana. Even in states like Texas, where recreational marijuana remains illegal, it's hardly some mysterious substance nobody can find. I could go outside when school lets out and score some weed in less than fifteen minutes. Prohibition has costs. Those costs don't magically disappear because the intentions behind it are good. Which brings us back to firearms. Unlike illegal recreational drugs, firearms have legitimate and important uses, including hunting, sporting activities, and, most importantly for this discussion, self-defense. "But Europe has almost no gun deaths, while America leads the world!" Well, no. First, Europe isn't a country, and European nations have different laws, cultures, crime rates, and histories. Second, the United States does not lead the entire world in firearm homicide rates. Several countries have substantially higher rates. America absolutely has a serious firearm violence problem, particularly compared with other wealthy, developed countries. I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But there's another important distinction that gets lost in these conversations: Gun deaths are not all the same thing. Suicides, domestic murders, gang-related homicides, accidental shootings, and school massacres are different problems with different causes. They may involve the same instrument, but that doesn't mean the same policy will solve all of them. A substantial portion of American firearm homicide is associated with broader problems of violent crime, concentrated poverty, and criminal activity. Remember when I was talking about illegal drugs? Well, here we are again. Drug trafficking and illegal markets contribute enormously to gang violence. The same prohibition policies that are supposed to protect society can help create enormously profitable criminal enterprises willing to use violence to protect their business. Funny how these things intersect, isn't it? Now let's talk about something this meme conveniently ignores: defensive gun use. Every year, Americans use firearms to defend themselves against criminal threats. Exactly how often is a matter of considerable dispute. Some estimates put defensive gun use around 25k s annually. Other surveys have produced estimates exceeding a million. Personally, I'm skeptical of the highest estimates. I suspect the real number is much closer to 40,000/year. Even the conservative estimates represent a substantial number of people protecting themselves from violent crime. That's important. When you propose restricting access to firearms, you aren't merely affecting people who might commit crimes. You're also affecting people who might need a firearm to stop one. That's the part gun control advocates so frequently seem unwilling to acknowledge. A firearm is not inherently an act of violence. It is an instrument that can be used for violence, for defense against violence, or for entirely peaceful purposes. The overwhelming majority of American gun owners never use their firearms to commit violent crimes.. which is why the accusation in this meme is so thoroughly dishonest. It takes an object that millions of Americans own and use lawfully, including for the defense of innocent life, and declares that displaying support for the right to own it amounts to celebrating murdered children. That's emotional manipulation. It's particularly nasty emotional manipulation. Now, before someone says I'm arguing that gun laws accomplish absolutely nothing, I'm not. Certain restrictions may prevent certain crimes. Others may have unintended consequences. The effectiveness of any particular law deserves to be examined on its merits. What I reject is the simplistic notion that making something illegal necessarily makes society safer. Here's another example: Prescription painkillers. Ask people suffering from severe chronic pain what it's like trying to obtain adequate pain management these days. In response to a very real opioid crisis, we've imposed restrictions that have sometimes made legitimate treatment extraordinarily difficult. People who genuinely need these medications can find themselves treated like prospective criminals. Meanwhile, illicit opioids, including fentanyl, remain a devastating problem. We have managed to make life harder for legitimate patients without eliminating the illegal market. Does that sound familiar? Because it's precisely the kind of unintended consequence that worries me about firearm restrictions. The people most willing to obey the law are the easiest people to restrict. The people already willing to commit murder are, by definition, considerably less concerned about obeying it. And now, finally, let's talk about school shootings, because that's what this meme is really trying to exploit. School shootings are horrific. They're also relatively rare events, statistically speaking. The number of children murdered in school shootings each year is considerably smaller than many people imagine when they hear broad statistics about gun violence involving children. (most of those "children" are 17-19 years old and gang members) That doesn't make a single one of those deaths acceptable. It means we should understand the actual scale and nature of the problem if we're serious about solving it. Second Amendment advocates have proposed solutions! We've suggested allowing appropriately trained, willing school employees to carry firearms, subject to serious standards and safeguards. Now, ask your average conservative what they think of the public education establishment. You'll probably get an answer that would make a sailor blush. Yet, many of us would still rather see a properly trained teacher capable of defending students than leave an entire classroom helpless while waiting for police to arrive. Gun control advocates frequently oppose this. We've suggested placing more trained law enforcement officers in schools, with clear responsibilities for responding to violent threats. Many gun control advocates oppose that, too, arguing that police don't belong in schools. There are legitimate questions about training, implementation, effectiveness, and unintended consequences. I'm perfectly willing to have those conversations. Here's what I find infuriating: You cannot demand that we take school security seriously, then dismiss every security proposal we offer as proof that we don't care about children. You can disagree with our solutions. You can argue that armed teachers are a bad idea. You can argue that school resource officers aren't effective. You can present evidence, challenge assumptions, and propose alternatives. That's how serious adults discuss public policy. But you don't get to declare that anyone who disagrees with your preferred solution is celebrating the slaughter of children. That's morally repugnant. I happen to believe children are among the most precious people in our society. I think they deserve serious protection. We protect presidents, members of Congress, judges, and other public officials with armed security. We protect banks, courthouses, and other important institutions with armed security. Apparently, the notion that schools might also benefit from appropriately trained armed protection is, to some people, beyond the pale. I don't understand that. I genuinely don't. I especially don't understand the insistence that anyone proposing such measures must secretly be indifferent to dead children. Here's the fundamental disagreement: You believe restricting civilian access to firearms will make children safer. I believe that preserving the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, while addressing violent criminals and improving school security is a better approach. We can debate which policies actually work. We SHOULD debate which policies actually work. We should be willing to change our minds when the evidence warrants it. But this meme doesn't do any of that. It doesn't present evidence. It doesn't examine competing solutions. It doesn't even attempt to understand why someone might support the Second Amendment. It simply points at one group mourning murdered children and another group displaying support for gun rights, then declares that the latter must be celebrating the murders. That is a grotesque accusation to make against millions of decent, law-abiding Americans. You don't have a monopoly on compassion because you wear a particular pin. You don't have a monopoly on caring about children because you support a particular law. You certainly don't get to claim the moral high ground by deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs and motives of people who disagree with you. We both want children to come home from school alive. We disagree about how best to accomplish that. If you cannot recognize the difference between those two statements, then perhaps you should spend a few more brain-thought tokens on the subject before posting another meme.