Article LibraryBusiness Security
Our Stance on Guns and Gun-ControlWe at Blue-U Defense try to make it a point to stay clear of political debate and issues. Unfortunately, it is a topic that is typically passion driven and, as a result, can create hostility, especially in today’s highly politically divided society.
Over the past couple of months, however, we have been asked about our stance on guns/gun laws and the impact that they have on crime and, more importantly, acts of terror like the recent tragic incident in Orlando Florida.
By far the majority of the political left seems intent on blaming the Orlando tragedy, as well as Aurora (Colorado), Sandy Hook (CT), San Bernardino CA), and others, not on the person and/or the organizations that those who committed the acts represent, but on the tools that they used to commit the tragedy.
Now please consider this:
If we use Orlando Florida, Aurora Colorado, and Sandy Hook, CT as examples, they say that the problem, and common denominator amongst all three incidents, was high powered assault-type weapons. And they are correct! This was, in fact, “a” common denominator. There were, however, two additional common denominators, and likely many others. The two, in particular, that I would like to address are:
1) There were vehicles that were used to get a perpetrator or “person” to the scene of the crime
2) There were individual human-beings who committed the crimes.
If you take away the two actual tools that I am addressing, the firearms and the vehicles, you are left with the actual human-beings who committed the tragedies. And incidentally this is the only true common denominator that applies in almost any horrible incident whether it be murder, terror, traffic crash fatalities, armed robberies, burglaries, etc. Think about it; “Are the tools worth anything without the person actually using them?”. A gun doesn’t walk itself to a scene, find a victim and shoot itself; a knife doesn’t cut or stab anyone without someone first picking it up and using it for such a purpose; and a car does not drive itself into another person or car without either control, or lack thereof, of a human-being.
Check out these facts:
In 2014 12,588 people were killed in the United States due to firearms (either purposeful or accidental) and there were an additional 23,025 injured as a result of firearms.
According to certifiedparalegal.org, in this same year (2014), there were 90 people each day (32,850) killed in the United States due to motor vehicle crashes and 3 million additional people injured. First of all, these numbers far, far surpass the numbers related to guns and gun violence. Now I think it’s safe to surmise that almost all of these vehicle-related injuries/deaths were likely “accidents” of some sort. And I think it’s safe to assume that a huge number of these were the result of people abusing the automobile by way of reckless or drunk and/or impaired driving, distracted driving, excessive speed, etc.
So if we are so concerned about taking firearms away from people due to the high numbers of injuries and/or deaths related to them and their use, why are we not that much more concerned about banning automobiles?
And, incidentally, knives kill 15 times more people each year than rifles. Remember, the majority of firearm deaths are caused by handguns, not “assault-type” rifles. So where are we on banning knives?
I recently heard a politician, I don’t know who he was, say that the Orlando incident was not about terror, it was about guns! Are you kidding me!
Think about terror attacks:
Many of them are carried out using explosive devices, IED’s, etc. All of these are illegal for anyone to make and/or possess pretty much regardless of what country you live in. But guess what? They still use them with fairly regular frequency, don’t they! Do you think for one minute that if assault-type weapons were illegal that the killing would stop? Think about Chicago Il? As far as I know there is a complete gun ban in that city. Yet the murder rates in that city are at all-time highs! Why?
I know it’s been said a million times yet it’s very true:
Take away guns from law abiding citizens and only the criminals will have them!
I have heard several very concerning things about the Orlando, FL incident, mainly by those who just don’t think the issues through:
1) Why was Mateen able to buy a gun if he had been investigated by the FBI and/or on the “Terror Watch List”?
Answer: Because they were not able to find anything to charge him with during the investigation. Now think about this:
What if you, for whatever reason, were investigated by the FBI for something that was found to be completely unfounded. Should you not be able to buy a firearm for the rest of your life simply because you were the subject of an investigation?
Secondly, how does one get on the Terror Watch List and of equal importance, how does one get off of it?
2) Why wasn’t Mateen watched more closely by the Orlando PD after the FBI completed their investigation?
Answer: Why should he be? There are many investigated by the FBI and State and local Police departments that never do anything criminal in their entire lives. So, what did we expect the Orlando PD to do? Watch Mateen 24/7 for the rest of his life? And if not for the rest of his life, how for how long? Where would any police department get the resources and funding to accomplish this for every person of interest for terrorism?
The problem with these horrible tragedies is people, not tools that they use. Guns are an easy target however. We don’t need them to survive and they are just not an interest or passion for everyone. If they were as equally needed to live our daily lives, like cars and/or knives, this issue would never be discussed, just as they in fact are not even though they kill far more people each year than firearms. For that matter alcohol is another comparable example of this. Many, many people consume alcohol however an extremely small percentage of those who do are responsible for the loss of the lives of others due to its abuse and/or misuse. These terrorists and murders who utilize firearms, who also are an equally extremely small percentage of overall gun’s owners, are the equivalent of the people who consume alcohol and then drive and kill or injure someone else. Again, many, many people are killed as a result of alcohol abuse and bad decisions but again, no one is looking to ban alcohol. Again, the one common denominator whether it be a car crash, murder, act of terror, armed robbery, burglary, rape, etc. is:
A person had some control over the outcome!
I just wish we would apply logic to problems equally rather than push only the things that don’t impact us personally. It’s always easier when the end results don’t impact our lives personally.
Now, that being said, do I believe that anyone who hasn’t committed a disqualifying crime or have a disqualifying illness be able to own a gun?
I used too; but not anymore!
When we first started Blue-U Defense I had an unusual experience with a regional, yet very popular “shooting enthusiasts” online forum. I had submitted a post about a training seminar that we were going to be conducting on the Stand Your Ground Law and Making Responsible Decisions in Use of Force Encounters. What I got, in return, was highly eye-opening! A bunch of presumably legal firearm owners who clearly couldn’t care less about appropriate and responsible decisions with their firearms. I began to realize that this:
If you own a firearm and are looking for a reason to use it - Then you shouldn’t own one! If you have no interest in educating and preparing yourself to make good decisions under high stress situations – Then you shouldn’t own a firearm! If you have no interest in truly understanding the laws regarding the “Use of Force” – Then you shouldn’t own a firearm or any other tool meant for self-defense. It’s people like this who make things extremely challenging for all firearm owners.
Unfortunately, it would be extremely difficult to “weed” these types of people out in a background check, regardless of how thorough it might be.
And I also believe that there should be stricter controls on gun transfers. I don’t not believe that any firearm should be transferred without doing it through a Federal Firearms Dealer. The problem is that a firearm can be tracked through the ATF until such time as it is transferred to another individual, outside of any official record. This makes it extremely difficult to determine a “current owner” when investigating crimes.
And finally, I believe that there should be required training in order to own a firearm. If I can use the motor vehicle comparison above when it comes to banning firearms, I should also be able to use it here as well. Anyone who is granted the privilege of being able to drive a motor vehicle is only able to do so after passing a test and showing some level of competency. Why? Because a motor vehicle can, and does, kill and/or injure. And required training should include the showing of competency in both physical skill and decision-making. It scares the heck out of me when I ask the question “What does the stand your ground law mean” and the answer is “it means if someone comes into my house I can shoot them”. I have nothing against the people who believe this however, they only believe this, because they haven’t been trained or taught what it really means.
So there you have it. My thoughts on guns and gun control.
Published Jun 22, 2016
|Blue-U Defense Seminars, LLC. Copyright © 2017 , All rights reserved. Powered by TAGE|