I got a great email from a reader who was a bit confused about my position, the NRA/Pro-gun position on background checks with a keen interest in where to learn more that might help them understand how I obtained or sustain my worldview. They are from out of state and looking for perspective. One point that was of most concern was why we (pro-gun folks) would be against background checks? I don’t actually know any that are against them in total, just the latest ones, for reasons explained in my reply, so I tried to stick to what drives me. The Second amendemnt’s purpose, the effect of law abiding gun owners on crime, and a side of check this and that out to expand your world a bit.
Here’s my reply.
Hey xxxxxxxxx,
First, thanks for reading. I appreciate it. Second, I get insulted, called names (from Democrats and Republicans), receive implied death threats…you are very polite, and thanks for writing to me. So….
I don’t read much NRA stuff so I can’t really point you to anything other than founding documents and the basic point of the second amendment. That a law abiding armed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny and that is entirely the point. The reduction in crime is just a very beneficial side effect–an area of honest exploration that has convinced more than a few people that gun control has no effect on criminals and only creates more victims, myself included. If you are looking for straight data try FBI Crime data compared to places with strict gun laws and compare it to places with more open laws. Muggings, robbery, assault, burglary, rape, and murders all decrease (sometimes dramatically) where more and more law abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed wherever they have a right to be and where stand your ground and castle doctrines are in place.
You don’t have to have any political affiliation to grasp that and it was really what convinced me. Most criminals don’t want to get shot or dead.
Criminals go where they know they can commit crimes, murderers are no different. Crimes of convenience drop if they know you or someone near you is armed and might kill you in the course of your attempted crime.
Mass murderers typically expect to die but want to do as much damage as they can before they go so they pick Universities, schools, any place they know of where everyone has been disarmed by the law and no one will be able to stop them.
As to background checks, I don’t know a gun owner who is against them. They complete them dutifully, pay the fees, and provide their ID’s and personal history. In NH, where we have some of the most open gun laws in the country, we all fill out the paperwork. We fill it out at gun shows and in gun stores. It’s the law. As Law abiding gun owners we not only follow the law, we understand it. We insist on training. We recommend range practice, developing muscle memory and being familiar with the tool. We encourage gun safety with each other and any one else who chooses self defense. The culture is nothing like what the media and anti-gun folks claim. It is not a criminal culture it is about safety, life and property rights.
And we complete the check with each purchase because life is an ever changing process. Things happen. No one denies that once stable people can go south. That good folks can be driven to turn to crime. We don’t want to have to shoot them in defense of ourselves and others if they lost their marbles or got desperate and come after us. The unarmed have fewer choices–they just get shot.
It’s hard to carry a 200lb policeman with you everywhere you go, by th way. A legal sidearm is lighter and always at hand. And did you know, citizen arrest, with or without a firearm, is a longstanding right of the law abiding populace. And yes, a shotgun makes a great home defense weapon.
Now you may be wondering why we’d object to the latest round of Federal checks that have been in the news and which I have remarked on? First and foremost, they wont do any of the things they claim. The bigger problem with the Senate Bill was that plenty of states have already chosen similar more enhanced checks just like those and these states have more crime because criminals do not buy guns from licensed firearms dealers, so all those enhanced laws do is create more potential victims. It’s a feel good bureaucratic leap that adds costs and complexity for law-abiding gun owners in the wake of a real tragedy. That bill would not stop crime–it may however dissuade law abiding folks from buying a gun and considering training for their own self defense. It also sets a new normal for the even more restrictive laws like the ones Senator Feinstein and others want. So why support a pointless bill that dwells on aesthetics and whose checks do nothing except take us a step closer to a national registry which is how England and Australia eventually disarmed their populations? No reason I can think of.
Second, why would I accept a pointless Federal mandate upon my state when our existing less restrictive system has resulted in NH having the lowest homicide rate in the nation and one of the lowest crime rates in the nation year after year? In Vermont you don’t even need a license to carry a handgun. Did you hear about the blood in the streets flowing in Vermont for years without any background checks for handguns and no licensing at all? Nope. It doesn’t happen. It’s all scare tactics. The majority of Law abiding gun owners respect the privilege and honor the law. So I ‘d call point two a state’s rights issue. If NH citizens decide they need to alter the current system based on events relevant to NH, for more loose or more restrictive laws, they can petition their state government, elect those kinds of folks into office, and the state can decide for itself. Every other state in the nation is free to do the same or undo same. But a federal law that does nothing good and may make things worse…we can’t just undo that. So we have to stop it before it happens.
If you are up for it I’d recommend signing up for Imprimus from Hillsdale College. It is a free monthly newsletter–or you could read them on-line. Hillsdale has other free education options you might try as well to help build out your influences.
Here is a recent Imprimus on the second amendment. http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2013&month=03
If you want other resources on line try Pew Research Center. They are more Libertarian and centrist. Check out the bigger right wing blogs as well. Hot Air. Breitbart. PJ Media. American Thinker. Instapundit; Just to give you a broader look at what some on the right think about current events. Investors Business Daily’s news and editorials can be very instructive as well. Just for perspective.
So…not sure if any of this helps. Either way, thanks for writing and for reading. I appreciate your interest and respect your confusion. I hope I’ve cleared some of that up for you.
As a closing note, I will post the content of this email as a blog, as is, for the public record. I won’t mention you by name, or give out your email address. I’ll just mention that a reader asked me about the topic and paraphrase your “concern” for context.
Thanks again for the outreach. Have a great night.
Steve Mac Donald
Blogger/Editor- GraniteGrok.com
email: steve@granitegrok.com
As an added note on the current scheme of gun laws…there are tens of thousands of these law nationwide. Most of them do not do much except create victims. We would do well as individual states and municipalities to eliminate those and begin (or accelerate?) a cultural shift toward law abiding respect for personal defense and gun ownership. It can only continue to reduce crime and save lives.
