By the time you read this, an important deadline will have passed. The amnesty window the ATF has provided for those of us who would like to get our braced pistols registered as short-barreled rifles is about to expire as I write.
I’ve got a PAP that I’ve had for years, sitting in the safe. It has had a pistol brace on it in the past. As of the time of writing, I’m not a criminal. I work in the firearm industry and take legal matters very seriously, so I have no practical choice except to register it.
This is one of those odd moments for me. I’m (generally) a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, I will comply (even when what I’m complying with is a ruling and not a law). The little AK that will only ever be used for all things lawful and legal will be brought into full regulatory compliance,
and a problem that didn’t exist in the first place will — at least on paper — have been resolved.
If I weren’t such a Boy Scout, though. What then?
“Gun bans” only work when the laws have teeth.
We’re here to talk politics, which is something I never do with anyone, ever. My editor, though, has asked for my opinions on a contentious topic, though, so I’ll say my $.02.
We have an extensive list of federal and state laws, local ordinances… all of which are designed to curtail gun violence. From the sweeping regulations of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which determines how long my AK’s barrel can be before it needs a tax stamp) to the Gun
Control Act of 1968, all the way through to the absurd restrictions currently in place in California, the legal restrictions on firearms fill volumes.
Prosecution, though, remains lax. Communication between agencies needs improvement, still. The first step in making a meaningful change: prosecute the laws on the books with maximum penalties.
But, you’re not a politician.
I’m not either. So let’s dive into areas where we can affect change.
Think about who should have guns and when. I live in a small, gun-friendly town in the south. Many of my son’s high school aged friends have shot guns and rifles. Some have pistols. Few have the safe storage necessary to ensure that those guns stay locked up when they’re not in use. Sticking a gun under the front seat of a truck and locking the door doesn’t count.
I’m not supportive of some parents buying some kids guns. While I am not going to go so far as to call for restrictions on the practice, I would like to see more thought put into education and training — two responsibilities that fall on the parents. But this is the responsibility of anyone who owns a gun, too. Learn how to use it, how to clean it safely, and how to store it securely.
Want a meaningful alternative to gun bans? Don’t be part of the problem.
This leads me to some self-examination.
Don’t let yourself off the hook. Look at your habits. How often do you keep your gun locked up? It is reasonable to assume that it should be in a safe or lock box if it isn’t in your immediate control.
Not long ago, I was reading a Facebook post from a neighbor who has had his car broken into. No lie — they stole his wallet, a knife, a laptop, and his gun — all of which were in his car. He seemed flabbergasted that such a thing might happen. Who would have even thought it was possible?
I’d be lying if I were to pretend that I have not left a gun in a locked car. And I’ve had a vehicle broken into. But police your own behaviors. Sometimes your safe may not even be safe enough, but it is a lot safer than your car.
On the Nature of Crime
The car-smash-and-grab may be a decent transition to a larger discussion about crime. As Californians are painfully aware, making new laws doesn’t guarantee that people will obey them.
In order to understand why some in this country (and others) are so obsessed with banning guns, we need to understand the root cause. Consider the nature of violence.
Every gun debate I’ve ever participated in (and I’m not being hyperbolic here) conflated violence with guns. While there is an obvious correlation between the two (when violence is inflicted with guns), they are not the same. Look at the crime statistics for any country that has taken draconian measures to ban guns; there is still violent crime.
Britain has had issues with acid attacks and stabbings. Other places in Europe have seen mass-casualty archery events. And recently 30 tons of ammonium nitrate disappeared from a freight train en route to California. Odds are it isn’t going to be used as fertilizer.
To begin addressing the root causes of violence, we must look to mental health. Laws already exist against murder. If capital punishment won’t stand as a deterrent for those who seek to harm others, no new restrictions on firearms will stand in their way.
Talk It Out
How then can we make meaningful change? There are obviously people who you will never convince. Let them go.
Look to the moderates. We need to begin an active conversation about the ways we protect ourselves from violence in all of its forms. This is key, I think, to opening up dialogue. Violence is an inexorable part of being human and self-defense (and the defense of others) is an inalienable right.
Most of you reading this will agree with me that a firearm can be a damn good tool for self-defense. Yet this part of the debate is often dismissed by those with an agenda.
The CDC, on a page dedicated to violence prevention, has this to say about the role firearms play in preventing violence:
What is defensive gun use? How often does it occur?
Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend oneself, family, other people, and/or property against crime or victimization.
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to study design. Given the wide variability in estimates, additional research is necessary to understand defensive gun use prevalence, frequency, circumstances, and outcomes.
Additional research is necessary. In the meantime, if you were to engage an assailant in a defensive scenario and act within the law — your use of a firearm would be classified by the CDC as “Interpersonal Violence” which is defined as a “firearm homicide or nonfatal assault injury from a firearm.”
How many instances of self-defense are being grouped into rank-and-file homicides? The CDC has a category for “Legal Intervention” that results in death or injury from a firearm — yet that category is reserved for uniformed officers acting in the line of duty.
You can see how this gets to be political. Many of the surveys — including those of the CDC — often single out children, yet they count 19-year-olds as children for these reports. These numbers elicit an emotional response.
Before you assume I’m saying we don’t have a problem, or that our problem isn’t as big as we make it out to be (because bumping the age to 19 allows for a lot of the gang problem in this country to be used conveniently in reporting about “children”), think again. We have a huge problem with violence. And guns are a part of it.
Legislating this, though, with more laws, or gun bans only attacks a tool that is all too convenient as a scapegoat.
