Guns For Everyone – Gun Podcast
Podcasts For Everyone!
After the “town hall” hosted by CNN on Friday, January 8th, I had many thoughts. Most of them were not kind. But one thought has been stuck in my head since before gun control has taken hold of the headlines thanks to the tragic events in San Bernadino. How do we take practical and effective steps to reduce gun violence?
Most of my allies in this subject have only one answer, more guns! That is a piss poor solution. First of all, it misses the point of addressing the sorrow and grief felt by the families and friends of victims which in turn prevents the kind of discussion that can actually reach some kind of solution. Second, after spending a lot of time working with new gun owners and teaching them how to safely use a handgun it becomes obvious that while these peoples’ hearts are in the right place, the number one thing they lack is proper and sufficient training. I am an absolutist when it comes to my support of the 2nd Amendment and my fundamental belief that more liberties are far less dangerous to our Republic than more government. But I also understand that just putting a gun in the hand of a citizen doesn’t automatically make us all safer. Case in point.
But I do think there is one political issue that both Republicans and Democrats could come to an agreement on that would drastically reduce gun violence not only in this country, but in other countries as well, including Mexico where tens of thousands have been gunned down in horrific violence over the last several years.
End the War on Drugs.
What much of the Left likes to call “gun violence” is not gun violence, it’s drug violence. It’s the result of an unregulated and highly profitable market left to criminals which enjoys extreme profit margins that CEO’s around the world would kill for. The ultimate paradox of the Drug War is that the more difficult you make it for drugs to make it to their ultimate consumers, the more profitable the trade becomes which in turn makes the stakes that much higher, compounding the capacity for violence.
As a microcosm we should look to Chicago, a brutal exhibition of what gang violence can do to a city. Let’s examine the common rhetoric on both sides of the gun debate and where they fall short in explaining the true nature of the problem.
Pro gun people point to Chicago as a perfect example of the end result of extremely strict gun control. Remove the good guys with guns and the bad guys take over. That argument falls apart with just a few simple questions. First, who are the good guys and are they being shot? For the sake of this basic simplification, let’s just say that the good guys are the ones who are not dealing, buying or using drugs. Let’s say we arm a “good guy”. Is that good guy going to march into the ghetto and use his gun to stop a drive by shooting? No. Is he going to use his gun to prevent a drug deal from going bad? No. Is he going to strap on his iron and end the massive gang wars that are going on in the neighborhoods of the city? Absolutely not.
Second, if for all intents and purposes you pretty much can’t buy a handgun in Chicago, where are all these guns coming from? They are coming from less restrictive areas of the state, or nearby states. That is a cold hard fact. Increasing the availability of guns in the city isn’t going to magically make these gangs stop shooting at each other.
Third, and most importantly, why are these people shooting at each other in the first place? Is it because their “victims” are unarmed? With the amount of gunfire going on in that city, I’d bet that’s not the reason. It’s because they are fighting over drug money and drug territory. It’s business, and business is booming. Heroin in Chicago, as in many other parts of this country, is seeing a huge resurgence from where it was even just a decade ago. As an aside, we have untreated prescription opiate abuse to thank for that little gem.
So the typical pro gun arguments for why Chicago is suffering fall far short of explaining the issue, and the pro gun “solutions” stand little chance of slowing the violence.
The Democrats point to guns as the problem, completely ignoring the motivations behind hundreds of young men killing each other in the streets every year. Is there an epidemic of people snorting or mainlining Glocks? Can you go down to the street corner and watch hundreds of people spend $4 on a balloon of Ruger? As gun owners like to say, guns are just tools. The reasons the tools are used is the real issue here. Obviously banning the tools isn’t affecting the drug trade. If anything the War on Drugs is making those tools essential hardware for protecting one’s business. After all, are guns not the tools of war according to our dear leader?
What would happen if instead of focusing on guns as the problem or the solution, we turned our attention to the failure of the War on Drugs? What began as a crusade to protect our children from the horrors of Reefer Madness, Go Ask Alice and celebrity overdoses has turned into one of the longest, most expensive and bloodiest wars in history. And it hasn’t worked. At all. Drug use per capita has risen since Nixon first declared this shameful war in 1971. Drugs are generally of a higher quality and cheaper than they were in 1971. And the violence that we were trying to avoid has come anyway with a ferocity that no one could have imagined. What good has this war accomplished?
Reducing gun violence is something that furthers the goals of 2nd Amendment lovers, because it sucks the air out of many of the anti gun arguments. Reducing gun violence is supposedly a goal of the anti gun crowd so addressing the faulty public policy of the War on Drugs serves their interest as well. Colorado has experimented with a small segment of this issue and has had enormous success. The tax revenue in Colorado from marijuana sales alone should be enough to get both Democrats and Republicans to take a hard look at the potential for a change in drug policy.
The problem is that it truly seems that neither side is really interested in solving any problems, including the problem of gun violence. Solving problems doesn’t raise nearly as much campaign money as pointing out the faults of your opponent and promising to fix those faults.
God bless America.
There is a lot of useless rhetoric that flies back and forth in the gun debate in this country. Both sides lob simple minded one liners at each other that are about as effective as a .22 against level III body armor. The Mainstream Media riles up the gun lovers by featuring the opinions of mental giants like Piers Morgan and Dianne Feinstein. And gun “nuts” retort with tired phrases about cold dead hands and gun free zones. Nobody changes their minds, and very little is accomplished by either side.
For those who feel spurred into real effort through legislative action, protest or some other form of activism, it’s an uphill climb to say the least. Getting people organized and tuned in long enough to accomplish anything of value is incredibly difficult. It does happen, but it’s far less common than the usual result which is a lot of fervor that quickly dissipates in the face of the relentless responsibilities of everyday life. It’s very difficult to keep people engaged, even when our liberties are under constant attack.
I was having a conversation with a colleague of mine several months ago who is extremely anti-gun. She doesn’t even talk about “common sense” gun laws. She wants every gun banned and confiscated. Talking to people like this is difficult because it’s extremely challenging to find some common ground as a starting point for the conversation. Naturally the conversation eventually veered into, “The NRA is everything that is wrong with this country,” territory. Ah yes, the evil NRA. I asked her a simple question, “Where does the NRA get it’s money?” She paused, then with a snarky tone she replied, “Well the gun manufacturers give them money.” This is a little bit more than half true.
The NRA takes small fortunes from companies in the gun industry through a variety of contributions. According to BusinessInsider.com, the NRA has drastically ramped up it’s solicitation of money from the industry over the last decade. It has used this money to become one of the largest lobbyists in the country. It’s well known that politicians fear the NRA and their wrath if they “step out of line” and the NRA relentlessly exploits that kind of clout to do what it does, which is to effectively lobby for gun rights. Say what you will about the NRA, but no other group carries that kind of weight.
But when we talk about the NRA, it’s easy to forget the other side of that equation, the gun industry itself. This industry doesn’t just print new money and give it to the NRA. There is a reason they have that kind of money to give. Gun sales have steadily risen as the gun control rhetoric in Washington has heated up. 2015 set a new record for background checks, topping out at over 23 million. Let that sink in for a minute. 23,000,000 background checks. In one year. To say that this is a booming business is an understatement to say the least.
And that is just firearms. There is no real tracking of the money that is spent in the industry on parts and accessories. If I were a betting man, and I am, I’d wager that the amount of money spent on tactical widgets, zombie killing ammo and operator beard oil at least equals the dollars spent on serialized receivers. We are talking about a staggering amount of money. My credit card balances concur.
It’s fair to say that every dollar spent at Cabela’s on overpriced .223, every credit card receipt emailed to you from Brownells, every Fedex package that arrives at your door marked ORM-D that you deftly sneak past your wife as she is making dinner, every forgotten bolt carrier group that hides in your gun drawer, every 4473 that your FFL enthusiastically slaps on the counter as you fondle that new Tavor that you have been trying to ignore, every holster you ever bought and used once, all of it goes to support the cause….it all matters. The sheer size of this industry is what gives it its massive political inertia. 23 million background checks speaks for itself.
The anti-gun crowd doesn’t seem to grasp this. You can have your Million Mom March, your Moms Demand Action, your Mayors Against Illegal Guns, etc. But nobody, not even Mayor Bloomberg, is dropping the kind of money to promote gun control that we are spending every single year on guns.
The media hints at this issue, but almost by accident. They never seem to connect that the amount of money spent in this business reflects the political will of the people in this country. Obama wants you to believe that 90% of Americans support stronger background checks. I’m sorry, I don’t believe you Mr. President. I believe the growth of Smith and Wesson’s stock. I believe the fact that 4 or 5 new gun shops have opened in my town in the last 3 years. I believe the growth of the firearms training market. I believe 23 million background checks.
I’m not trying to tell you how to live your life, but when you are sitting in front of your computer at 2AM trying to justify spending $500 on yet another Glock (this time it’s ghost grey!) remember that your money isn’t going into a black hole. Participating in this market is a kind of activism in and of itself.
So after watching the #debates last night, I was curious about the post election violence threats that have been trending through social media. Granted most of the reporting on this has been coming from Twitchy, a recently new startup by Michelle Malkin which is a GOP twitter propaganda machine. Some of the violence however has been coming directly from mainstream or as I like to to call it “lamestream” media. Yes, that’s right, the media has been propagating this message as well and I have to say I am shocked, but not surprised.
Look, it’s no secret that Lawrence O’Donnell is a card carrying Obama lover, but I was a bit taken back that the network let’s him get away with calling out Taggart Romney on his show saying that he’d like to take a swing at hime because Taggart made an off the cuff comment to a reporter about Obama calling Mitt a liar.
I personally could care less what anyone calls Mitt, or Taggart, that’s not what this is about, what I’m curious about is what is the actual plausible threats to larger urban cities if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election? Is it possible to see some retaliation from the urban poor who may feel threatened because a GOP white guy is in office? It seems like the more the country divides over this election, the only resorting option besides debating is to start a bar brawl in the streets.
Regardless of what side of the red / blue fence you’re on, it’s something to at least consider as a possible threat to your locale. What will you do if you were caught in a mob of pissed off rioters? What would you do if Lawrence O’Donnell want’s to kick your ass? For one I plan to stay clear of any urban populated areas post election night.
Check out the video of Lawrence losing his sh*t and calling for violence on prime time television.
P.S. If you don’t support either candidate consider throwing your support towards Gary Johnson.
“A wasted vote is voting for something you don’t Believe in” – Gary Johnson”
Univision explores how US Weapons, given to Mexican Drug Cartels have now been traced to
numerous murders in Mexico via the gunrunning program known as “Fast and Furious”
Fast and Furious Scandal: New Details Emerge on How the U.S. Government Armed Mexican Drug Cartels