The Eternal Quest For “Common Sense Gun Laws”

It all starts with proper research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the same manner they were able to conduct research and use data to effectively help policy makers to pass laws that helped significantly reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from automotive accidents. Information provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention helped lawmakers pass legislation regarding drivers’ licenses and testing, vehicle inspections, drunk driving, seatbelts, car seats and booster seats for children and toddlers. This in turn reduced the percentage of automotive related deaths from all deaths in the 90s’ from 41% to 31%. All this and more is being done without the need to ban cars.

Now the same argument can be made that research done by the CDC can in fact help reduce deaths as a result from gun violence and misuse of firearms in the United States of America. Except that in 1996 a provision inserted into the spending bill required that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control. " A provision that was heavily lobbied for by the National Rifle Association. So in essence, Policy makers can pass sensible gun laws to reduce fatalities from gun violence without taking guns away from safe gun owners. Then-President Barack Obama spoke at a town hall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana on June 1, 2016 as he was asked about gun rights and possible gun laws in the United States where he was asked why doe he want to take away guns from safe and responsible gun owners. The person asking the question supported his question by giving an example that hits close to President Obama where he stated that his city of Chicago exhibits some of the worst gun violence by gangs. The President opened with an example of automobile fatalities, where fatalities caused by vehicles were at an all time high during his childhood days, but since the issue regarding automobile fatalities became a topic of research and study it was through those efforts that the numbers and instances of such fatalities was brought down using new laws targeting seat belts, child car seats, drinking and driving, and texting and driving.

The president followed with a statement that Congress has taken a strict stance about research and studies conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in order to address issues regarding gun violence that is wide spread in the US. The president’s rebuttal is that the idea of “common sense gun laws” does not mean taking guns away from gun owners. But simply passing and enforcing laws regarding the procurement of guns and ammunition. Laws such as stricter and more thorough background checks, taking away gun rights from sympathizers of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. The idea that democrats want to take away guns and strip Americans of their 2nd amendment right is simply a piece of propaganda fabricated by the National Rifle Association in order to protect its’ interests. And those interests are but not limited to profits and persuading as many pro-guns Americans as possible to stock up on as many firearms and ammunition as possible for one of many scenarios that many far right Americans have given a name for and that name is “When Shit Hits the Fan” or “WSHF” for short. Such scenarios are a civil war, 3rd world war, government tyranny, terror attacks on home soil and maybe even the zombie apocalypse is even included. The point is, the National Rifle Association is using tactics such as inciting fear and propaganda and shelling out tremendous amounts of money to lobby against gun control and keep its interest protected by using paid politicians. So, with the National Rifle Association being the biggest and most intimidating obstacle towards gun reform and moderate gun control that aims to solely restrict gun and ammunition access to some very specific criteria of American citizens and residents – yes, non-US citizens can buy guns too, including residents from countries with known ties to terror cells – of the United States.

Some examples of who falls in that pool of people with restricted access to guns are: a person with diagnosed mental illness, a person with a felony, a person younger than a certain age, and a terror sympathizer. Maybe even restrict the total number of guns a cleared person can purchase by type of firearm. Also restrict the number of ammunition a person can purchase within a year. Such measures could have potentially averted the mass shooting incident at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Those same measures could have stopped the mass shooting incident at First Baptist Church at Sutherland Springs, Texas. In the end, meaningful changes will not occur until politicians stop slinging mud across the aisle and put aside their differences. So that they can come together for a common goal and work side by side and through bipartisanship to pass laws based on research conducted on gun violence to limit access to guns by those who should not have access to such firearms.

The first and arguably most important step towards that goal is for politicians to stop taking lobbying money from the National Rifle Association and approach the issue without any corporate induced bias. Of course, it is not always as simple as that, because politicians are scared of being voted out of office if they work towards an agenda that does not align with their voters’ and constituents’ beliefs. For example, recently U. S. Senators had to vote on a confirmation following a hearing regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. While it was predicted that every senator was going to vote along party lines, some said they would not let their party affiliation influence their vote because the whole idea of the Supreme Court and its’ justices is that it should be an apolitical branch of the government that does not lean strongly towards the left or right and instead tends to be in a more neutral area. But unfortunately almost every senator voted across party lines including those who said they might not. That way they would not risk upsetting voters who would then vote them out of office in the upcoming midterms. Congress needs to communicate effectively to the American citizens that their 2nd right amendment shall not be infringed upon and that safe gun owners will continue to own guns because if passed, sensible gun laws would not be aimed at them and instead at those who should not purchase such weapons.