Reflecting on Newtown: A brief discussion on the prevention of future tragedies

Conversation can be so difficult.

We all yearn to find those who we can share our sentiments with, but as we see on a regular basis, humans have a natural tendency to talk over listening and learning from others’ experiences.  Deep down, many of us suffer from a sort of illusory superiority complex, thus vastly overestimating our intellectual capabilities relative to our peers (we can probably thank our parents and grandparents for that).

Dunning and Kruger have shown that in a variety of tests, an inflated self-image tends to correlate with poor performance while those who score exceptionally high have more realistic and often overly modest expectations (Ehrlinger, Joyce, Kerri Johnson, et. al “Why the unskilled are unaware:  further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent).  Although as a caveat, conclusions obtained from meta-analyses such as those performed here are often subject to publication bias, it has been an accepted philosophy amongst intellectuals throughout history that, as in the words of Charles Darwin, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”.  This theory may explain why the loudest voices in passionate debates are generally the least logically sound.

Through social media, we follow our idols, communicate our philosophies and publicly acknowledge those whom we agree or disagree with.  When powerful events hit the media, most recently the indescribably heinous shootings in Connecticut, these modes of communication become saturated with soapbox rants that are often polarizing, and to some, antagonizing.  We should not go as far as to condemn those who speak their mind but the dialogue in these discussions MUST improve for us to make changes for the betterment of man.  For this to occur, knowledge, patience, logic, and critical reasoning skills are paramount.

I will make it clear, early, that on the topic of gun control, I believe stricter legislation across the board is necessary.  This would include (but not be limited to) longer waiting periods, more serious punishment for misuse (even if not resulting in injury), stricter accountability measures on weapons registered to an individual, and eventually as the study of neuroscience progresses, more rigorous mental health screenings.  I understand the reality of the fact that we can never completely remove deadly weapons from existence (although Darwin would certainly appreciate that- survival of the truly fittest), but I find it absurd to believe that we can’t come together as a country, even globally, to work to minimize such violence that plagues society.  This effort also must include the acceptance of the physiological aspects of mental illness along with an elimination of the stigma that comes with seeking help.  Millennia of human ingenuity has brought mankind from cave dwelling hunter/gatherers to a technological society that is mind-blowingly advanced.  So why not take the next step?  Why not dedicate our efforts towards ensuring that every human being is given the opportunity to live a long, fulfilling life.  Evidence suggests that we get only one.

Here, I’d like to dissect some common arguments that I find detrimental to this ideology.  My goal is not so much to discredit those advocating gun rights as much as it is to provide discourse that counters common, overly-simplified arguments against strict firearm legislation.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

The spike in blood pressure that I experience when I see this statement on a bumper sticker, Facebook status or tweet may eventually become life-threatening, so please excuse me while I vent.  I get it; a firearm alone is harmless and requires the pull of the trigger to be destructive, but a gun is a machine specifically designed for killing with minimal risk for the shooter.  A powerful example of this point is the parallel between the Newtown, CT massacre, in which 26 people were killed, and the slashing of 22 children (and one adult) in a Chinese elementary school (and we should all aware of the strict gun control in China).  The result of the events in China: serious injuries but zero fatalities.

If we outlaw guns because they kill people, we should outlaw spoons because they are accessories to obesity.

This argument is difficult to comprehend and logically invalid.  First, most reasonable gun control advocates are not championing for a complete weapons ban.  Second, and even more absurd, is the connection between gun violence and overeating, one of which involves the infliction of serious injury to another living being while the other involves a personal choice to decrease one’s longevity due to overindulgence.  This is not a fair comparison.

If more citizens have guns, armed assailants will be able to inflict less damage before apprehension and/or criminal activity will be deterred.

Unfortunately, there just isn’t sufficient evidence to either substantiate or refute this claim.  I have yet to find a study on this subject that does not reek of liberal or conservative bias.  Mind you, however, I have a life and job that has nothing to do with the subject matter, and more research may yield better conclusions.

If somebody wants to go on a homicidal rampage, they will, regardless of gun access.

In a sense this is true, but the argument cannot be used alone to substantiate a position against gun control.  People harm others for various reasons and use different mechanisms based upon these reasons.  Timothy McVeigh was frustrated with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ handling of the Waco siege, which led him to justify killing hundreds of civilians in the Oklahoma City bombing as a statement against the government.  The September 11th attack is another example of a deadly assault on US soil that did not involve firearms and was orchestrated to intimidate our leaders (mind you that neither of these attacks could have been prevented by armed civilians).

In contrast, I believe (and I must admit that I’m no expert in psychology) that the desire to embark on a shooting/stabbing rampage stems more so from a lust for blood, dominance and power; a mental disturbance that can be exacerbated by an alienation from one’s peers.  It seems that from the few details that we know, many of the recent assailants in these high profile shootings seem to fit into the aforementioned group.  The point here is that while strict regulation on guns may lead criminals to commit crimes in other ways, the mental state of a face-to-face murderer may be unique to the weapon of choice.  Hence, I do not believe that many of these perpetrators would have resorted to a less personal form of violence, such as an IED, if they had not had relatively easy access to guns.  And, lastly, we should all be able to agree that, logically, knives, bludgeoning devices, etc. are much less amenable than guns for mass killings.

The US constitution affords US citizens the right to bear arms.

That it does, but I argue that gun ownership should be viewed as more of a privilege than a right.  First let’s be clear on the fact that our constitution is not infallible.  It was written by our forefathers who couldn’t have imagined the landscape of their country 200+ years later:  Oh, and also, most of them have that little blip on their records; slave ownership.

In particular, the second amendment reads:  “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.”  Note the reference to a well-regulated militia. Clearly the intentions at the time were to keep the nation safe from invasion by arming the citizens.  But now, we have the largest military in the world!  If our armed forces that have cost us so much over the years cannot protect us from a ground invasion from a foreign nation, such that the right for any civilian to bear arms becomes a necessity for national security, then we have much bigger issues to worry about.  So while this generally well-written and thoughtful document has led to the formation of the most powerful nation in the world, let’s make sure we don’t forget its faults.

The war on drugs doesn’t work.  Why should a war on guns?

It is certainly true that America’s war on drugs has had its fair share of negative consequences including excessive imprisonment for generally victimless crimes and the inevitable development of the mafia, gangs, cartels, etc.  The prohibition of alcohol had the same effect.  Most left-leaning individuals will agree that the war on drugs has been counter-productive in this sense, but it is dangerous to make such a comparison.  The difference between drugs and firearms is that the damage done by drugs is self-inflicted whereas guns are often used to injure others (with the exception of suicide, which I find to be rather irrelevant in gun control conversations).  While prohibiting citizens from legally consuming what they desire, the government infringes on our right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Conversely, the threat of physical harm does the same.  Hence, it can be argued under this pretense, that those who campaign for the drug war and against regulation of weapons are hypocrites.

And as a note to all gun enthusiasts and hobbyists:   Anybody that can feel empathy should GLADLY  be willing to trade their video games, television shows, sports teams, sewing machines, etc. to promote an agenda to save innocent human lives.  It comes off as insensitive to prioritize your personal obsessions over the safety of your fellow Americans.

We need to bring god back into schools:

The politicizing of the Christian God by Mike Huckabee and others has gotten so ridiculously out of control that God himself should consider conjuring up a second flood.   Do Americans not realize that there is more than one religion in the world, and that our country consists of exceptional, law-abiding citizens that have never believed in a Christian God?  How offensive must it be as a non-Christian, somebody who grew indoctrinated into a completely different belief system, to hear a politician blame a horrific tragedy on a God that one may have never even heard of until later in life? Why is it that when four Americans died in Benghazi, it was due to executive incompetence, yet this tragedy can be blamed on an entity that we don’t all have faith in and have no concrete scientific evidence for.  This type of hypocrisy that emanates from the right-wing faction at times is reprehensible.

The blame game:

Schools aren’t doing enough to prevent bullying.  Parents need to raise their children better.  Violence in the media instigates mayhem.  While these each may be contributing factors to delinquency, to focus on only one is short sighted, as the issues run much deeper.  We live in a distraction laden society where relationships are minimized by technology and family life is much less influential due to working parents.  To this we must learn to adjust.  The violence in the media/games/etc. that our youth are immersed in may plant the seed of aggressive behavior, but cannot be proven as a causative agent of sociopathic tendencies.  As a matter of fact, it can alternatively be argued that living vicariously through violence in the media (movies, video games, music, etc.) can serve as a release to those struggling with compulsive thoughts.  Instead of “planting the seed”, infatuation with these sorts of violence may actually be the result of underlying antisocial issues caused by ostracization from family and peers (i.e. bullying at school).

So what do we do?

Despite the plethora of arguments against gun rights rhetoric, the answer to our nation’s violence problem remains unclear.  What is known, however, is that a 0.03-0.04% homicide rate in the most powerful nation in the world is unacceptable.  Of course, our situation could be MUCH worse (see most of South America and Africa), but it could also be substantially improved (see most of Europe, China, Japan, etc.).

I also think that it is important to note that strict gun regulation does not perfectly correlate with a reduction in homicide in other areas of the world.  The United States has by far the highest gun ownership in the world at 88 guns per 100 citizens (Yemen is a distant second at 55 per 100), but at least 28 countries have higher homicide rates than the US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list).  Thus, it is important for our leaders to earnestly consider the pros and cons of tighter gun regulation before enacting legislation.  Since up to 50% of the world’s privately owned guns can be found in the United States, irresponsible gun control laws do have the potential to create a powerful black market that would do more harm than good.

I do believe, however, that one small step that we can take as a country is for each of us to make a genuine effort to respect one another a little bit more than we normally feel inclined to do, remaining conscious of those whom may be battling mental illness.  Take the time out of your day to talk to the colleague that you tend to blow off.  Apologize to friends and family that you have alienated.  Respect each others’ differences.  The human brain is an incredibly complex system of neurons and neurotransmitters that is constantly undergoing physiological changes, especially early in life.  I believe that instances of negative thinking (sadness, envy, anger, fear) can affect your natural cognitive processes and set the wheels in motion for long term illness.  Often times, those with the most serious issues appear perfectly normal.  Don’t contribute to setting a peer into the cataclysmic realms of despair.  Make an effort to do one good deed each day, something as small as an acknowledgment or a compliment or a favor, and you may wind up saving a life.

Advertisements

4 responses to “Reflecting on Newtown: A brief discussion on the prevention of future tragedies”

  1. dallascowboy1 says :

    Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
    While the statement may be technically true I dislike its use to its highly misleading nature. Guns unquestionably can facilitate the killing of people. Point of fact, and it is not just picking nits, a gun is a machine designed to send a projectile(s) downrange. This is an important distinction over your statement “specifically designed for killing” since there are MANY shooting sports that have not a thing to do with killing. Minimal risk is entirely situational as well. You will find yourself made a fool bringing up Chinese school attacks as they have had many with plenty of fatalities – all by knives and swords. Japanese officers killed several fold more people on an individual basis with swords in the rape of Nanking. To attempt to say “knives are better than guns for crazy people going out to hurt others” is beyond absurd. Whose to say that having access to guns kept him from using gasoline or a bomb. The presence of those guns may have saved dozens / hundreds of lives.
    If we outlaw guns because they kill people, we should outlaw spoons because they are accessories to obesity.
    You make a strawman here that guns = gun violence = infliction of serious injury to another person. Where is your reference to the 700K+ instances of guns protecting people and property EVERY YEAR? The purpose of the metaphor is to illustrate that a tool is a tool. If you ban one for a misguided stupid reason then you should be consistent and ban all tools for misguided and stupid reasons. Additionally you make a completely unfounded and unsupported assertion “most reasonable gun control advocates are not championing for a complete weapons ban”. I would state that there is *no such thing* as a “reasonable” gun control advocate. When people kill other people with baseball bats and golf clubs not a peep is heard about “regulating” those. When people kill other people with cars and due to drinking, not a peep is heard about “regulating” those. Additionally in the few pieces of scholarship that I have read the estimated instances of guns “helping” on an ANNUAL basis is 700K+. Contrast this to fewer than 11K deaths due to guns and the balance is well in favor of keeping as many around as one can. Its also important to note that a huge segment of those deaths are black male youth aged 15-30 involved in inner city gang violence. If you truly cared about reducing gun violence you would end the drug prohibitions that create the black markets that keep these gangs funded and that they fight over.
    If more citizens have guns, armed assailants will be able to inflict less damage before apprehension and/or criminal activity will be deterred.
    You mean like the reduction in violent crime nearly everywhere carry permits have begun being issued? There is loads of evidence that guns function to deter criminal activity. Why do you think there are so many shooting deaths in Chicago? Is it because they have very liberal gun laws or because they guns virtually unattainable for a citizen in good standing?
    If somebody wants to go on a homicidal rampage, they will, regardless of gun access.
    In a sense this is true? This is absolutely true. Depending upon how capable they are the individual’s homicidal rampage may be more or less destructive than with guns. A dolt may just hit a few people with a crowbar. A mad scientist may clone a deadly virus and release it across multiple cities in a shot amount of time. There is a strong argument that certain psychotropic drugs are dangerous enough that at least some people using them should perhaps be carefully monitored in case such homicidal rage is induced. You may not “believe” that a homicidal maniac would go to more effective killing system, but McVeigh (who you mentioned), the Bath Massacre, and a whole pile of Muslim suicide bombers in Israel would inform you that your “belief” is unfounded.
    The US constitution affords US citizens the right to bear arms.
    If you believe that gun ownership should be viewed as a privilege then you have a clear reading comprehension problem, and further response on my part is probably moot (though I will respond anyway, hopefully to correct your broken thinking). You cite the text of the Second Amendment later in your response. Nowhere does it say privilege, however it does say “right”. Discussing slavery is a complete non-sequitur to the issue at hand. The fact that they signed the Constitution itself despite lacking the authority to do so is a much bigger “blip” on their records. Can you not realize the second amendment exists *precisely* because they could not view the landscape of the country 200+ years later? A group of men that just risked their lives, fortunes, and honor in fighting a tyrannical government – a government whose VERY FIRST ACTS of the war were to restrict and confiscate all weapons – were the men that wrote and voted on the Second Amendment. Are you really going to question whether or not the Second Amendment was intended as a defense against tyranny. Really in that respect the battle over the Second Amendment was lost long ago, since the list of weapons prohibited to the American Citizen is long indeed. The intention of the founders (at least most of them) was clearly to not keep a standing army (or at most a very small one) but to keep the power of defense and of arms distributed amongst the several states as a check on foreign adventurism and of despotic rule.
    The war on drugs doesn’t work. Why should a war on guns?
    “Fair share of negative consequences?!?!?!?!” The war on drugs is the PRIMARY DRIVER behind most gun violence in the United States. The primary driver behind our massive prison population. You cannot even differentiate the two because as soon as the war on drugs is over a HUGE amount of gun crime will vanish (as well as other crime as well). And again you are either being purposefully obtuse here or are going off topic again. “The difference between drugs and firearms is that the damage done by drugs is self-inflicted whereas guns are often used to injure others” Aside from the fact that you are ONCE AGAIN ignoring all of the good that guns do. The primary point of this comparison is that the government is so incompetent that it cannot even keep drugs out of its prisons, much less off the streets. If it can’t do that for drugs, how is it going to do that for guns. The simple answer is that it cannot. So you end up with the wonderful situation of “only the bad guys have guns”. Great solution buddy.
    And as a note to all gun enthusiasts and hobbyists: Anybody that can feel empathy should GLADLY be willing to trade their video games, television shows, sports teams, sewing machines, etc. to promote an agenda to save innocent human lives. It comes off as insensitive to prioritize your personal obsessions over the safety of your fellow Americans.
    And as a note who in the hell do you think you are to tell people what they should or should not be willing to trade? Or what they should be willing to trade for? You sound like a petty tyrant, which is a despicable mindset – probably one enjoyed by many mass murderers. We have an amazing human institution called the “market”. It allows people to assign a value to a particular item or items that they like, and trade with others in order to acquire those items. For you to take the central planning point that you can arbitrarily dictate what people should or should value – and how much they should value – puts you in such enviable company as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Does it feel good to realize you share an idiotic point of view with the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century?
    We need to bring god back into schools:
    Taken literally this is obnoxious. Taken metaphorically it is spot on. Society has changed (I would say degraded) to the point that violence and bad acts are both more highly tolerated and accepted by many people. That needs to change, or you will fix absolutely nothing. And you can get off of your soapbox with bitching about the Christian Church. Would you be bitching if any other cleric for any other religion said something similar? Take it for what it is. A stupid statement literally, an apt statement metaphorically.
    And as an aside Americans dying in Benghazi was CLEARLY executive incompetence. Not sending help for hours led to those deaths. There is no question about it. And if you ever spent time with any religious people (which you clearly do not) you would have heard them hear the same thing about Benghazi – (it was god’s will they die fighting, they are in a better place now). Do you hate Christianity so much that you get worked into a tizzy that a few true believers express themselves that way?
    The blame game:
    Schools aren’t doing enough to prevent bullying. Parents need to raise their children better. Violence in the media instigates mayhem.
    Parents do need to raise their children better – at least some do. A lot of the ninny state regulations need to be done away with. The absolute best thing that could happen for schools would be the end of the public education system and a corresponding drop in taxation. All parents could then choose which private schools to send their child to, and pay a corresponding tuition each semester. This way the parent is going to be very concerned about the education that their child is receiving since they have a big chunk of money on the line, and the parent is simultaneously going to care that their child doesn’t act out and start fights. Expulsion would mean the loss of a big chunk of money. Having “skin in the game” is the best way to make people care. I do not buy the video games/tv/movies bunk. Perhaps it causes an incremental degree of desensitization, but it sure as hell does not drive many people to be homicidal maniacs.
    So what do we do?
    Ugh. Do you really care about ending the homicide rate? Deport every single black person out of America, you just killed ~50% of the homicides and lost only ~12.8% of the population. Oh snap! Now we are in more or less in line with Europe for homocides. If you deport illegal Hispanics you will reduce it by another enormous chunk (although those statistics are more difficult to get hold of, since Hispanics are nearly always considered white when creating a “negative” statistic).
    “Does not perfectly correlate?!?!?!?” Does not correlate at all with a reduction in homocides. Why have gun deaths gone down since the “assault weapons” ban expired in the early aught years? Shouldn’t they have gone up? OMGOMGOMG less regulation everyone is going to diiiiieeee. Oh wait, didn’t happen. The correlations are very clear. Where conceal/carry laws have been implemented crime has either not changed or dropped. There is a STRONG argument to encourage gun acquisition and practice by good people.

    I agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly.

    • mporter22 says :

      In response to dallascowboy1:

      I appreciate the effort that you put into your rebuttal as my goal is to spark discussion. But unless you are secretly trying to strengthen my argument under the guise of a stereotypical hard-line gun rights supporter, I fear that you may have only embarrassed yourself.

      After re-reading my essay, I do have to apologize for any sense of arrogance that I may have conveyed to you. I can see how one could come to the conclusion that I think that all gun rights activists are intellectually unsound. My intended message, however, was that I think that cliche political statements (from liberals and conservatives alike) inhibit us from solving our problems. It just so happens that I support firearm regulations, so I focused on arguments from the opposite end of the spectrum.

      Having said that, I feel that your direct insults to my intellect and questioning of my character (especially considering that you likely know me, yet chose to remain anonymous) only make you come off as emotionally unstable, thus damaging your credibility. I will not take the time to refute everything that you have said, but there are a few points that do stick out.

      First and foremost, cite your sources when making claims, especially statistics (unless you clearly show your statements to be speculative). Data from studies on crime prevention due to gun ownership can be especially sketchy due to response biases in those interviewed.

      Secondly, while our forefathers were certainly bold and courageous, you cannot expect a slave owner to understand a damn thing about human rights.

      Finally, as I was reading through your response, I was preparing myself to engage in a rational debate with somebody on the other side of the fence. That was until you spewed your ignorant, racist bigotry all over my nice little blog. If you had any background in criminology, you would know that the best indicator of deviant behavior is thought to be relative deprivation. Meaning that jealousy and greed are what drive people to crime (mental illness is also a contributing factor, but considering that most mass murderers in the United States are white, we will forget about that for now). There has not been a single study that has linked a specific race to deviance. The reason that blacks and other minorities represent such a large prison population is partly due to racism in law enforcement and mostly due to socioeconomic status. Just as you or I may feel slighted by not having wealthy parents, blacks have had to deal with generations of racist policies and inequality. While we may think that racism isn’t much of an issue in this day in age (and it’s true that we are becoming more accepting), a population cannot just suddenly rebound from oppression and contribute equally to society (thus the concept of affirmative action). While you may cite systemic abuses or the poor character of some of your minority colleagues, you must understand that amalgamation of an ethnic group into a society that had oppressed them for generations is a complicated process.

      That is all that I have to say.

      M

  2. Colin says :

    Hey Porter, Glad you’re writing this blog…I’ll be looking forward to your updates.

    Regarding guns, it seems like you’re kind of in the middle, wanting more regulation, but not an outright ban. I’m not sure if your friend from Dallas realizes that.

    I’m pretty similar…I don’t think we need guns designed to kill 50 people in a clip, or bullets that explode once they’re inside you. I also think it’s ridiculous that people believe the solution is to arm everyone. That would NOT make me feel safe.

    But I also don’t think we should impose an outright ban on guns, which a lot of people seem to desire. Here’s my logic on that end: First, an outright ban on guns would not keep them out of the hands of criminals. Criminals don’t give two shits about what’s banned and what’s not, and so disarming criminals ironically gives them more power over law-abiding folk. Additionally, there are already hundreds of millions out there in the US, and they last generations without breaking. They employ very simple technology (they’ve been around for centuries), and the black market would grow quickly to meet the demand. We have sweatshops in NYC, weed easier to get underage than alcohol, and pirating impossible to stop. Any attempted ban will fail for the same reasons any other type of prohibition fails. Needless to say, guns are not going away. (You talked about the comparison of weed prohibition to the ban on guns being whack, but I think you focused more on whether we SHOULD prohibit either item than on whether we CAN.)

    And so under the premise that no matter what the law, guns stay in the hands of millions of criminals, I think law-abiding citizens should be able to buy them if they desire them for protection. As long as there are armed criminals and crazy people, you should be able to arm yourself too.

    Thoughts?

    • mporter22 says :

      Hey Colin, I am genuinely excited to have piqued your interest!

      In response to your comments, yes, I am an idealist. In a perfect world, the Chinese never invented gunpowder and we would handle our disputes with feats of strength and mental prowess (I’ve always envisioned wrestling and chess matches between world leaders to be incredibly amusing). Instead, there is such a strong polarity between our beliefs that we find it necessary to completely eliminate one another to gain the upper hand. And I must admit that idealists like myself spend a lot of time discussing what is right or wrong instead of what is practical. But in my defense, I believe that you SHOULD always strive to meet your ideals. If you want a B in a class, you don’t aim for a C. You shoot for the A so that if you just miss, you are right where you want to be.

      I think that further gun restriction is going to take an incredible amount of cooperation between the multiple factions of society. But if any event is going to tug at the heartstrings of even the most avid gun supporter, the massacre of children should do so. Here, we must realize that concessions must be made on both sides to come up with the best solution. One of my quotes of all time came from Larry David in a episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm (in reference to Henry Clay). “The best compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”.

      Take, for example, an effort to remove certain semi-automatic weapons from use by the general population by making them illegal to own. Either we will have to grant current holders immunity to the restrictions or generate some sort of government buyback program that may or may not negatively affect our economy (my knowledge of economics is rather poor, but my guess is that it wouldn’t). I, as somebody who detests the fact that just about anybody can obtain an Uzi (correct me if I’m wrong here), may actually support a large-scale, mandatory government buyback (but I still haven’t decided as this shit is complex!). Nevertheless, I may have to settle for increased regulations on future production of these types of weapons, but that sure as hell is better than nothing. Again, mind you, that this is one very small example of the vast landscape of issues at hand. But it does go to show how much work we have to do.

      But as long as our country is saturated with firearms, the crazies will find a way. So in that sense, owning a gun for protection may be a good idea (although all that should be necessary is a single 9mm). So in a perfect world, if we only had a minority of citizens paranoid enough to carry a small firearm with a large scale govt. buyback of the more destructive ones, combined with those who are willing to give in as an act of solidarity to the victims of gun violence, we have a start. Combine that with increased attention toward gun trafficking (I’m fully aware that this would be expensive and we have fiscal concerns as it is), increased penalties for illegal possession and more stringent accountability for weapons registered in one’s name, maybe -just maybe- will we move toward a more peaceful society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: