Gun Control and the Law of Unintended Consequences
I've been tossing this around in my head for quite some time. Yes, I'm pretty liberal. Yes, I believe in gun control. I believe we should treat guns the same way we treat motor vehicles. To own a gun, you should have to go through a safety course and pass a test to get a license to own and then every gun should be registered. I also thing certain weapons and modifications should be illegal. With the millions of guns already out there, this would not have an immediate impact, but perhaps 20-30 years down the road, things would be better.
Where I have a conflict is the background check. To me, it's obvious we don't want people who have been convicted of a violent felony to own a gun legally. Think of it as allowing a repeated drunk driver to have access to a motor vehicle. There are certain times, once you've proven you cannot handle the responsibility that comes along with right of owning and operating a motor vehicle, that we rescind that right. However, we don't have a provision for rescinding the right to operate a motor vehicle due to mental illness. Quite simply, whether you are talking about a gun or a car, it would't work.
In an ideal world, we could say that people with mental illnesses should not own a gun. The problem, then, is people who want to own a gun, for whatever reason, will not seek treatment for any mental illness they might have. This could, in turn, result in more people with uncontrolled and untreated mental illnesses in possession of weapons. If they come from a family of avid hunters, they could not seek treatment of depression or anxiety because they are afraid of losing their hunting rifle. It doesn't have to be a nefarious reason.
I suffer from depression, anxiety, and PTSD. I have guns in my home that are unloaded and locked up. I went to a hunter/gun safety class and passed all of the tests to get my hunting license. I was in therapy for a number of years after my daughter committed suicide. I take anti-depression drugs and have had times when I needed valium to relieve the anxiety. Should I be disqualified from owning a gun? What constitutes a mental illness where we disqualify someone from owning a gun?
What about the soldier that comes home with PTSD? That seems to be the case in the shooting in Thousand Oaks, although other than that issue we don't know that much right now. Should our former military be prevented from owning weapons due to mental illness? I mean, look at what happened to Chris Kyle. He thought he was using weapons to help a fellow soldier with mental issues after he served and it didn't work out the way it was supposed to.
And in those cases, how many people will just try to hide their mental illness instead of getting it treated, making them more of a ticking time bomb than if they owned a gun and was getting treatment?
The law of unintended consequences means the outcome is not foreseen as a result of the actions. I think this one is pretty clear. You'll never be able to completely ban guns in this country, and some aspects of gun control really need to be thought out before they are enacted. Just as prohibition gave rise to mobsters, there are aspects of what some people think we should do about guns that just won't work int he long run. It's pretty easy to say people with mental illness should't own a gun, but where is the line drawn?
Where I have a conflict is the background check. To me, it's obvious we don't want people who have been convicted of a violent felony to own a gun legally. Think of it as allowing a repeated drunk driver to have access to a motor vehicle. There are certain times, once you've proven you cannot handle the responsibility that comes along with right of owning and operating a motor vehicle, that we rescind that right. However, we don't have a provision for rescinding the right to operate a motor vehicle due to mental illness. Quite simply, whether you are talking about a gun or a car, it would't work.
In an ideal world, we could say that people with mental illnesses should not own a gun. The problem, then, is people who want to own a gun, for whatever reason, will not seek treatment for any mental illness they might have. This could, in turn, result in more people with uncontrolled and untreated mental illnesses in possession of weapons. If they come from a family of avid hunters, they could not seek treatment of depression or anxiety because they are afraid of losing their hunting rifle. It doesn't have to be a nefarious reason.
I suffer from depression, anxiety, and PTSD. I have guns in my home that are unloaded and locked up. I went to a hunter/gun safety class and passed all of the tests to get my hunting license. I was in therapy for a number of years after my daughter committed suicide. I take anti-depression drugs and have had times when I needed valium to relieve the anxiety. Should I be disqualified from owning a gun? What constitutes a mental illness where we disqualify someone from owning a gun?
What about the soldier that comes home with PTSD? That seems to be the case in the shooting in Thousand Oaks, although other than that issue we don't know that much right now. Should our former military be prevented from owning weapons due to mental illness? I mean, look at what happened to Chris Kyle. He thought he was using weapons to help a fellow soldier with mental issues after he served and it didn't work out the way it was supposed to.
And in those cases, how many people will just try to hide their mental illness instead of getting it treated, making them more of a ticking time bomb than if they owned a gun and was getting treatment?
The law of unintended consequences means the outcome is not foreseen as a result of the actions. I think this one is pretty clear. You'll never be able to completely ban guns in this country, and some aspects of gun control really need to be thought out before they are enacted. Just as prohibition gave rise to mobsters, there are aspects of what some people think we should do about guns that just won't work int he long run. It's pretty easy to say people with mental illness should't own a gun, but where is the line drawn?

Comments
Post a Comment