Hopefully Some Useful Discussion to Avoid Tragedy

I'm kind of tired of posting the same thing on Facebook over and over.  So I am going to say them here and link back if I feel it's necessary.  This is not going to be complete.  It would be so long, nobody would read it.  It is more of a jumping off point.  If you want to discuss further, then by all means, comment below.  If you don't, well don't.  I only ask that if you do, you keep it civil.  On an issue like this, at a time like this, emotions can run high.  Everyone feels like the other side doesn't get it.  Everyone needs to remember that the person on the other side of the discussion is not evil.  They are just trying to do what they think is right.  They are approaching it from a different viewpoint based on their beliefs and their personal experiences, not from a position of malice.  OK, disclaimer out of the way, so let's get to it.

I think there is some sort of misconception.  It seems that there are folks out there who think that people like myself, who enjoy shooting guns for fun, are looking to remove all gun restrictions and are hoping that one day we will get called upon to fend off an army of criminals so we can straight up murder people's asses.

I have zero interest in actually shooting someone.  I like to shoot.  I have a concealed carry permit.  I don't carry, but I have one for practical purposes.  I like shooting different guns and different calibers.  I am OK with preventing individuals who have a reasonable chance of harming someone from owning a gun.  I have started teaching my kids how to shoot a BB gun.  I want them to understand guns.  To understand their inherent dangers and how to properly be around and handle guns.  How to treat a gun, especially an unfamiliar one.  To learn good habits at a relatively young age so they take hold and become habit.  I am willing to discuss "real" gun control as long as your definition of "real" is not solely comprised of the outright ban of guns.  What I am not willing to do is tolerate people who have never fired a gun, have no understanding of how firearms work, the differences in the various calibers or the actual ballistics involved in a bullet impacting a target trying to tell me what type of gun is "legitimate" for a civilian to own.

People who do not understand that a .223 round fired from a bolt action "hunting rifle" (H/R) and a semi-automatic "assault rifle" (A/R) have the same terminal ballistics, lecturing me on what gun is appropriate or inappropriate to have, angers me.  People who don't understand that a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, a heat shield, a bayonet lug or accessory rails do not make an A/R do more damage than a similarly chambered H/R lecturing me on what my gun should look like irritate me.  Do they enhance the overall effectiveness of a weapon?  Of course they do.  Otherwise the military would not issue them, but they are more about ergonomics for the soldier than making it deadlier.  If I hand you 100 rounds of .223 and have you shoot them from a H/R and hand you another 100 rounds and shoot them from a A/R you will find that the A/R does not kill at a statistically significant higher ratio than a H/R using the same ammunition.

Now, if you want to talk about a semi-automatic action being unnecessary?  Bring it.  You want to talk about limiting the capacity of magazines?  I would love to have that conversation as well.  Talk about the ineffectiveness of the mental health portion of the background checks?  Great topic that is finally getting some notice.  The ability to buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check?  Happy to oblige. Talk about the possibility that the people who commit acts like mass shootings only do it to become famous (or infamous)?  Just because Morgan Freeman didn't actually say it doesn't make it any less valid.  Let's talk about things that might make an actual difference instead of banning weapons because of a knee-jerk reaction to cosmetic crap.

Now that I have said my peace, feel free to say yours.

Why I am Incompatible with Liberalism/Progressivism

I should start out saying I am not a Republican or a Democrat.  I don't like either of those two options.  They all do the same things, but justify them differently.  I don't care who you support, what your agenda is, get out and vote.  Vote for anyone.  Anyone you want.  Just not someone with an (R) or a (D) after their name.  That being said, here's the meat.

Liberals/progressives seem to think that you can solve problems of inequity by involving the government.  Think everyone should have health care?  Federal government should provide it to the people.  Too many people dying in car crashes?  Federal government should pass legislation the make cars safer.  Think people don't make enough money?  Federal government should pass legislation to increase wages.  Think corporations are acting against the interests of their employees and customers?  Federal government should create a regulatory framework to make sure the corporations act responsibly.

Here is the thing.  Forget for a second that I am a cold, heartless SoB.  I'll give you that one.  Forget that I believe in personal responsibility and working to solve your own problems instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you.  Maybe I'm wrong on that one.  Forget that I believe that the government should look to the people for direction instead of the government telling us how to live our lives.  Let's put those things aside.  Answer me this question.  Do you trust your government?

You see, I wouldn't have so much of an issue with the government handling some of the aspects of our day to day lives if I trusted them.  There are a couple levels of trust.  Trust that they tell the truth, that they have our best interest at heart and that they are sufficiently knowledgeable/capable.  Can you honestly sit there and tell me that you trust the people that are running this country?  Opinions on the Congress, both houses, are abysmal.  The Supreme Court isn't even trusted anymore. The President?  I'm not going to count that one.  Presidents are always a lightning rod of scrutiny.  We don't trust the institutions that are supposed to regulate industries.  We don't trust the people who make the laws.  We don't trust the people who enforce the laws.  We don't trust the people who interpret the laws.  You sit there and tell me that the Congress is bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.  The President is bought and paid for with corporate donations to political actions committees (PACs).  Even the Supreme Court is bought and paid for because their family owns stock in medical companies.  So THESE are the people you want making the big decisions.  The people who are owned by the very organizations that you think the government should be protecting us from.  Yup.  That makes sense.

But wait.  I'm sorry.  Your guy/girl/group is different.  They are incorruptible.  They said XYZ.  They would never do ABC.  They said they wouldn't.  If we elect them, everything will be different.  They wouldn't maintain the same policies that the previous administration held and that you abhorred.  Yup.  That's never happened.  We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We added Libya.  We're eyeballing Syria and Iran.  Gitmo?  Still there.  Surveillance on our own population?  Patriot Act, so check.  Indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without Due Process?  Thank you NDAA.  The government didn't fall apart when the Republicans captured the house.  It wasn't ruined when the Democrats captured the presidency and maintained control of the Senate. It wasn't ruined when the previous president was Republican.  It wasn't ruined when the previous House and Senate were controlled by Democrats.  It wasn't ruined in the previous administration.  Or the one before that.  It has been a steady decline.  Over time, politicians from our two perceived options for parties have proven, time and again, that they have the moral fortitude of overcooked pasta.  They lie, they cheat (both their constituents and on their spouses), they hold other politicians' legislation hostage unless they get what they want (even when it's unrelated) like they are 3-year-olds.

Let's also not forget that we are letting people with backgrounds in law, business and politics craft legislation about education, transportation, medicine, environment, energy, the Internet, cyber security, defense, the economy, trade, foreign policy.  Fields they have ZERO experience in.  The people they get their information from to make these decisions?  The lobbyists.  The ones nobody trusts.

Now let's say that you get all your people in.  And they do exactly what they say they will do.  And they are experienced enough to make intelligent decisions regarding the topics above.  What happens when they are not in there anymore.  What happens when the other guys are back in.  And now you have to live with their ideas on the above topics?  Oh, now it doesn't seem like such a good idea, does it?