A Pragmatic Approach to Decreasing Gun Deaths

Assuming it’s not politics, what good does it do consumers in Seattle to know about a crime in Florida with saturation coverage? Same for SoCal to New York.

I’ve read people think we need gun control because children are afraid to go to school. That can only possibly be true due to adults intentionally ensuring that’s the case through saturation coverage of mass shootings by the press.

There are only a handful of actual mass shootings a year, directly impacting a few thousand lives and losing several dozen and not all of those are in schools. Tragic, yes. Are there steps to be taken, of course. Is that a reason to be afraid? Not statistically.

You’re substantially more likely to be killed in an incident involving a doctor or an automobile. Are you afraid to go to the doctor or get in a car?

Distorting perceptions in order to appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy, to pursue feel-good legislation with nearly zero results to show is gross.

BTW, when you say, “If we don’t pass this legislation (change our government), there will be another attack!”, that meets the DoD definition for terrorism. Meaning … stop.

There’s going to be another shooting regardless of which law is passed. It may involve a cop, a federal agency, an externally organized terror attack, something.

If you want to decrease gun deaths meaningfully, in a way that will make substantive statistical change, you have to look at the majority of gun deaths.

Suicide, homicide, negligence are the three macro categories from largest to smallest. Within those, fewer involve a rifle than are killed with fists, feet, knives and clubs (individually, not in aggregate).

So let’s drop the discussion of another AWB, didn’t help last time, won’t help next time. Let’s start reducing homicides, the majority of which are secondary consequences of the drug war.

End the drug war, every dollar spent can be redirected towards suicide awareness and prevention in public information and education. You’ve now taken steps towards decreasing the two largest macro groups.

Hate the messenger as much as you want folks, but abstinence education doesn’t work for sex or guns, so you start teaching age-appropriate firearms safety in all levels of public education and in public information campaigns like we did for the drug war.

We’re now moving towards a decrease in gun deaths due to negligence.

This approach would be a tough pill to swallow in D.C. Because it’s logical, first of all, and secondary to that, the special interests who have purchased and paid for Congressional reps would never allow them to end the drug war. Which, at its core, is crony capitalism. It doesn’t have anything to do with public health or safety.

I don’t care for Democrats and Republicans because I have thoughts, that and I recognize a bowl of fecal matter looking at itself in the mirror, but the facts of gun control do not support its pursuit. We can and should take other steps to protect the innocent.

For instance, a federal law stating in order to enact a gun free zone, any public entity must have armed security screening a single entry point with metal detectors. Any private entity creating a gun free zone may be liable for any deaths caused by criminal violation.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments.