Marc, shooting from the hip, as usual

This blog is about gun control.  That makes the title funny, right?

Ed, thanks for keeping the blog going as of late.  You've posted some stuff that has caused me hours of consideration on a variety of topics.  If only someone could invent some kind of technology that converts my thoughts automatically into a coherent blog post.  That would be a first for me!  I have intentions of responding to those "tough" blogs that you've posted, but contrary to every time management and productivity article in the last 20 years, I'm going to tackle the easy stuff first.

It's easy because my Facebook post that indicated I was shocked by the comments of Bob Costas during Sunday night football got me involved in an email discussion on gun control with our Uncle Jerry.  I won't post the entire email chain, but I'll post my input to the discussion:

JJ, thanks for giving me the opportunity to jump in.  I'll try not to be TOO lengthy.

If I really drill down on this question in my own mind, I come back to the question of how much authority the government should have to protect its own citizens.  I don't mean to open the "big government" can of worms, but in my mind you can lump gun control in with that issue.  Are guns dangerous?  Hell yeah they are, especially when they are used improperly.  JJ, I agree with SOME of your points, in that I think there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere in regards to the types of weapons available to the general public (assault rifles for example).  But my original question has to do with how much authority the government should have to protect its citizens.  YOU may not think it's a logical argument, but the fact that other things, when misused, kill people IS a valid argument.  It's estimated that alcohol-related deaths are around 75K per year in the United States.  Why isn't the government trying to limit alcohol access to the "financially responsible"?  The answer is because alcohol is not the issue, the IRRESPONSIBLE use of alcohol is the issue.  Why are guns different?  That's what I think the gun control lobby needs to explain (at least to me).  Financially responsible people can misuse anything as easily as someone who is not financially responsible.  Personally, I have a hard time understanding when the government decides to get involved for "safety" reasons and when they don't.  Why do we have seatbelt laws?  Helmet laws?  Even soda consumption laws in New York City!  Why does the government feel the need to protect its citizens in this arena but not in so many others?

I don't really like your Constitutional argument either, since it's the omission argument.  The Constitution doesn't say specifically that I can have a car, but that doesn't mean they should prevent me from having one.  Just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say "a well regulated militia and everyone can own a gun if they want to do so", that doesn't mean they didn't mean to allow it.  In the late 1700's following a rebellion against jolly old England, I would venture a guess to say that nearly every single household had a gun.

I'm intrigued by your thoughts about financial responsibility.  Are you thinking that you should be required to have some type of insurance with a weapon (like liability insurance for a vehicle) as well as yearly registration, inspection, and licensing requirements?  I actually kind of like that idea.  Unfortunately, gun control advocates usually are locked on a single track: don't let people have guns.

Finally (and I promise I'll shut up for awhile), just as you find the usual pro gun lobby arguments illogical, I find the usual gun control lobby argument illogical:  Removing guns will remove the violence.  Blaming the root problem of violence on the instrument used in the violence is convenient, but it doesn't address the problem.  If you want me to concede that banning guns would reduce gun deaths, then you have to concede that banning alcohol will reduce DUI deaths.  Trying to get rid of guns doesn't deal with the real issue.  By way of analogy, in the past few years the military has FINALLY shifted focus in the fight against sexual assault to bystander intervention, because they realized that you can't stop the sickness that causes men to sexually assault by telling them not to do it.  You can only hope that someone recognizes a bad situation and intervenes to stop it before it gets to that point.  In the same way, you can try to stop the violence by removing guns, but that won't fix the problem.  

Violence in our culture... well, that's a whole different email chain!