Now, to the main topic. The gun debate. First, a question: What percentage of homicides in America are via assault weapons? (Answer at bottom of blog)
Wondering out loud: Why are so many people framing this argument in terms of "assault weapons ban OR mental health being addressed?" Don't both sides need to be looked at?
The goal of this particular blog is to encourage anyone reading it to get involved in the debate. It's very easy to go to www.senate.gov or www.house.gov and email your representatives. Below is a sample letter I sent to one of our senators. (By the way, our other senator, Chris Murphy, as of last week, didn't have an email address. I called his office, asked about why there was no way to contact him and was given a bunch of double talk by an aide about how long it takes for a freshman senator, blah blah blah. Yet, hee's the only senator in the US without an email address.) So I left a message, which I'm sure either won't get to him or if it does, it'll be garbled.
Even more importantly, contact your state reps and tell them how you feel. Very easy to do. Just google their name, go to the site, click on contact and type away. I happen to believe democracy DOES work, but only if we tell our legislators how we feel. (Feel free to use this letter as a template if you like)
Dear Senator Blumenthal: I'm sure you're
inundated with emails about this topic, so I'll try to make my points brief:
1: I like to think of myself as moderate
to liberal on most issues. In the subject area, I'm, hopefully, liberal and
thoughtful. Which is to say that I don't reject the NRA out of hand. And that I
also recognize their power, as well as that of their rank and file. And that it
has to be factored in.
2: Therefore, regarding your proposed
assault weapons ban, I do not know the specifics. But my first consideration is
how realistic such a ban would be. If it has "teeth", then I'd be in
favor of it. But if not, such as was the case in its previous incarnation, then
I'd be opposed to it as the proverbial "feel good" legislation that
does more harm than good.
3: Regardless of the content, we need to
reassure gun owners that their rights are not being threatened. There are few
political techniques more effective than the NRA acting threatened that the
rank and file are about to lose their rights. This is an area where liberals
have been on the losing end time and again. (What I'd really love to see is a
wedge between the NRA management and the rank and file. With such a wedge,
passing a realistic ban would be much easier)
4: The mental health component, I think we
can all agree, has to be addressed. That said, I wouldn't even know where to
begin. I'm actually going back to school to become a mental health therapist
(LCSW) and even I don't know where to start. I'm against a national database of
people with mental health issues (ironic that the NRA, who cries regularly
about government intervention, is in favor of such a proposal). Such a database
would include me, as I deal with chronic depression. What we need is better
communication within and between states and government.
5: What is also true is that people like
Adam Lanza would have been missed, as he had no history. Therefore, an assault
weapons ban that would effectively keep guns away from such individuals would
be something I would support.
I realize this is an enormously complex
problem. I also realize that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are
responsible people and that their rights need to be respected.
The fine art of politics is drawing that
line down the middle that takes the urgency of the situation into account while
assuaging those who are alarmed about losing their rights, so that they can be
on board.
I hope you can be both courageous and
thoughtful. You did get my vote and I hope to repeat that vote if you can help
lead us forward so that there'll never be such a tragedy again.
Sincerely,
Gerald Pollak
North Haven, CT
(Answer to question: According to FBI stats, 5% of homicides via
assault weapons. 320 or so out of 6200)
No comments:
Post a Comment