On Gun Control and the NRA
As a hunter myself, I feel like I want to support the NRA... at least in principle. In practice, however, I find myself less and less able to do so. I'm generally and morally opposed to the methods, media spin, and propaganda tactics they have begun to employ (or maybe they always have, I just was too young and/or naive to see it for what it was?). They should represent responsible and practical ownership of firearms, not an off-shoot or subset of the Republican Party.
I think nearly everyone would agree that there are simply some people in our society that we do *not* want, nor should be allowed to, own firearms... people with a history of violent behavior, for example. It's out societal responsibility to keep firearms out of criminals' hands and keep them in the hands of responsible citizens. Yet any reasonable attempt to do so is met with outrage and fury by the NRA, heralded as the first step in abolishing our rights to firearms. "They want us to WAIT 15 days before purchasing a handgun?! THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!" It's sensationalism, in the very definition. (Sometimes I really wonder if the NRA isn't just being just by gun and ammunition manufacturers drum up sales by stirring up panic about Democrats wanting to take away all of their guns.)
In Hunter's Safety classes, the entire emphasis is the incredible power that firearms have and they attempt to impart how to use that power, safely and responsibly. There are no two ways about it: firearms are incredibly dangerous and powerful... things clearly obvious by any mass-shooting. In the wrong hands and used for the wrong purposes, these are things which can shatter the lives of entire families--not to mention the lives they can end. How can one rationally argue this is a power that needs less control?
And the old "If everybody carried guns..." argument is a logical fallacy... it's the equivalent of saying "If every country in the world had nuclear missiles and ICBMs, there'd never be another war." Take the Colorado shooting: Imagine if dozens of movie-goers pulled out their guns to fire back. What are the chances any of those people would have actually shot the shooter? It is dark, packed with people, and filled with smoke from the smoke grenades. How many more people would have been injured or killed by the stray bullets? It's just flawed logic. The people who do these types of things are rarely thinking logically, let alone even sane; they don't do it with the expectation of surviving to begin with, so why would armed civilians be deterrence?
In reality, the NRA should be working with politicians--on BOTH sides--to help create reasonable legislature for gun control that keeps them out of the hands of those who would use them to harm others and to keep them in the hands of hunters and other responsible citizens. Yes, these laws might be a slight inconvenience to responsible citizens but, as hunters and gun-owners, can't we accept it as being necessary to help ensure that the guns being sold are going to the right people, people who will use them responsibly? Wouldn't we have more support--in general--if we had representation of reasonable people were willing to cooperate and reach legislative compromises instead of a group that screamed bloody murder if a politician even mentions guns? One that politicians will actually want to work with on new laws to get support, instead of saying "Well, they'll oppose it no matter what... let's just write whatever we want to write."
The "tl;dr" version:
To steal a quote:
"With great power, comes great responsibility."Firearms are a great power. And, as hunters and gun-owners, we all have a responsibility to ensure they stay in responsible hands and used properly... a responsibility that doesn't just end with ourselves, keeping them trigger- or breach- locked and in a gun-safe. It extends to ensuring the proper precautions and legislatures are in place to prevent (even more) firearms from falling into the wrong hands... even if that means we are slightly inconvenienced in the process.