There is also the argument that we have existing gun laws that are more than enough and just need to be enforced. This line of thinking also involves the idea that those who use guns for violence buy them illegally, and new gun laws wouldn’t stop that.

Then, there is my favorite, or rather, least favorite argument on the right: A good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun. With this post, I am going to start there. We have seen time and time again situations where police officers engage these “crazed gunmen” and are themselves killed. I found myself tearing up tonight watching the news report that the most recent bar shooting resulted in Sargent being killed who responded and immediately went in to engage the shooter. Sgt. Ron Helus was a true American hero. He was a year from retirement. He didn’t wait for backup. He arrived on the scene, heard shots, and went in to try to stop this tragedy from going any further. There were also 4 off-duty officers inside at the time that the shooting began.

Let’s not forget that, as of a few years ago, EVERY state has concealed carry laws now. I have yet to hear of a heroic story, though of some brave concealed carry permit holder stopping one of the over 300 mass shootings this year or any other year, for that matter. The truth is, if you are confronted directly by someone with a gun and have a gun yourself, you are very unlikely to be able to draw a concealed weapon and stop them without first being killed. That is simply how it is. What I will be the first to acknowledge, though, is that you could defend others who are being directly confronted if you have a concealed firearm. So, someone explain to me why this argument isn’t holding. I never thought it was the solution, but at this point, I want it to be. The laws have changed to allow it because the right said it was one of the solutions to our gun violence problem, but instead of getting better, it’s getting worse.

Mass gunmen are not phased by the idea that there are people armed everywhere in this country. Those who are armed aren’t stopping gunmen.

Where the right seems to be correct, though, is that there is a lot of mental illness being revealed in many of these instances of mass shootings. The problem is, though, that saying someone is crazy after the fact is useless if you aren’t willing to do more to prevent it from happening. Mentally unstable people, as well as those with anger management and self-control issues, shouldn’t be permitted to own or possess a firearm. A firearm isn’t a television. You shouldn’t be able to go in and buy one just by not having a felony. THAT IS ALL IT TAKES THOUGH. That is easy to get around, too, if you go to a gun show. I know for a fact that there are individuals in the south who have felonies who go regularly to gun shows to buy their firearms to avoid background checks. I am sure it is true for other parts of the country too. Here is my argument and suggested solutions, as unpopular as it all is for the left and right to hear.

I am an objective centrist. I grew up in the Midwest. Most of us growing up there had guns in our everyday lives. They are part of our culture and heritage in this country. I would never advocate for their total outlaw. I even support concealed carry. The idea that just getting rid of guns at this point would stop all the gun violence is naïve. The idea that new laws and restrictions couldn’t help the problem is equally naïve. There needs to be a middle ground and common-sense rules.

For starters, let’s cover some myths.

• Criminals buy guns at gun shows
  • NO, criminals get their guns in many ways. Many mass shooters have purchased them 100% legally (which proves there is a problem with our gun laws). Gangs buy them off the black market or just steal them. However, some are felons who aren’t supposed to have guns who do use the gun show loophole to buy their guns because they believe they have a right to have one and can’t afford one off the black market.
• There is no such thing as an assault rifle
  • An assault rifle is any rifle that is designed to kill humans. This needs to be legislated and codified. A rifle for hunting animals doesn’t have a high capacity magazine or the ability to rapidly fire, there is no need.
• AR-15 is or is not an assault rifle
  • Both sides like to argue this and many other rifles (see definition above). AR stands for Armalite Rifle, which comes from the original manufacturer’s name. Those who say it stands for Assault Rifle are wrong in that respect. HOWEVER, let’s be clear on something that the right doesn’t want you to know about this rifle. It was designed for the military, but they had very little success selling to the military. Armalite sold the design to Colt in 1959. In 1963, Colt had modified it slightly and got a contract to sell to the US military, which became what we know today as the M-16. Colt was having success with the design that they decided to make a semi-automatic version to sell to law enforcement and market it as the AR-15. In the 1970s, the patent expired, and other manufacturers started making the same rifle and selling it to anyone. It is an inexpensive semi-automatic rifle, which is why they are so popular. You can purchase a magazine for an AR-15 with a capacity from 10 rounds up to 100 rounds.
• A good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun
  • I’m from Missouri, SHOW ME. I have never found an example of this happening. The only good guys with guns that stop bad guys that I have found are the police. Sadly, sometimes they even lose their lives in this pursuit.
  • I not only hope this changes, but I think with time it will change. I think that with the propagation of concealed carry, you will find more and more people coming to the aid of others in shooting situations. But it will be rare that anyone will ever defend themselves with a gun against a gun; there simply isn’t enough time. Even police officers who are heavily trained and have a gun much more readily available on duty rarely stop a guy who is about to shoot them by firing upon him.
• Liberals are trying to take your guns away
  • I HAVE NEVER heard of any politician, left or right, who has proposed taking guns away or ending the 2^nd Additionally, even most democratic politicians are pro-gun.
• The Second Amendment is under attack.
  • If anything, the opposite is true. Gun laws have loosened tremendously in the past 20 years. We now have concealed carry in every state. ALSO, most states have either completely repealed or heavily crippled their gun permit laws. There are places where you can walk in and buy a gun the same day, in a matter of minutes.
• Gun Violence is mostly perpetrated by those on the right or the left
  • If you believe this in either case,y you are a partisan hack who doesn’t think for themselves. While the right is MORE pro-gun on average and the left is less pro-gun, this isn’t a partisan issue. There are those on both sides who are very pro-gun and those on both sides who are anti-gun. AND those who argue for either side don’t tend to be the ones using the guns for violence. Ideology has nothing to do with killing, usually. It is usually a matter of mental problems or hatred. There is plenty of that on both ends of the spectrum.

So, what can we do to fix all this? Here’s what I think:

• Stop being so stubborn, no matter which side you are on. Let’s compromise for the greater good. The opposite side is not villains. Gun rights activists aren’t the ones killing people in these mass shootings, and gun control advocates aren’t trying to take your guns.
• Stop justifying your position with lies and selfish arguments. Gun shows aren’t where mass murderers tend to buy guns, and the fact that you like having what most consider an assault rifle for fun target shooting isn’t a good enough reason to not regulate it when people are being killed at the rate they are by them.
• Stop making a felony an automatic bar to owning a firearm. Is it fair that a white-collar criminal can no longer own a gun, or a kid at 18 who stole a car and has now totally turned his life around 10 years later can’t have one? Let’s be a little more subjective. This is the one place where the right has never pushed, and I don’t know why. The Second Amendment is a right. While a conviction does have due process, and it is constitutional to remove a right on that basis, shouldn’t we consider the type of conviction? Shouldn’t there be a separate process for taking away a right instead of just an automatic bar because of a felony conviction?
• PROPERLY fund the ATF for investigations, research, and enforcement.
• Create a federal firearms owner card, which could have an endorsement for concealed carry and could be just an indication on a driver’s license. With the following process.
  1. Apply with Law Enforcement (preferably the ATF), paying a fee (REASONABLE FEE $50-$100 every 5 years)
  2. Background check performed
  3. Mental health eval done, including temperament and anger management evaluations.
  4. Gun safety course
  5. 5-year recertification
  6. You only must apply once. After you have the card, you can go buy a gun like any other item, same day.
• Create a tiered system for these firearms owners, including a higher level for those who are competition shooters or dealers, just like the current FFL. This would make it so there is a more thorough background check, like a federal security clearance for those who want to own higher capacity magazines and assault weapons, and even a tier for fully automatic weapons. The tiered system would also include a level for nationwide concealed carry.
• Pass laws which require mental health professionals, including simple therapists, to report patients to the ATF so that these owner cards can be flagged or revoked.
• Pass laws that require police to be accountable. Require that when a police officer has an encounter with someone where there are accusations of violence that they do a thorough investigation and determine if it needs to be reported to the ATF system for revocation of gun rights temporarily or permanently.
• Create a gun database so each gun in the USA can be tracked, especially when it is involved in a crime. Many people have guns stolen and don’t even know what the serial number was. It often takes days or weeks to track down where a gun was sold, and even longer to figure out who it was sold to, as there are rules that currently prohibit centralized computer records.
• Make all this federal law, which trumps state law and prohibits states from trying to be stricter or less strict.

Now to dispel the arguments on the right and the left. The left is shorter, so I will cover that first. For those who say this isn’t enough. I couldn’t disagree more. I feel like this would, within 10 years, cut gun violence in half, but we don’t know if we don’t try.

For those on the right. I have had people argue that there should never be a gun database because it gives the government the ability to take your guns if they know where they all are. YEAH THAT’S THE POINT. Only if you shouldn’t have one, though. You have a constitutional right; they can’t just take your guns away, so stop being paranoid.

For those who think this card permit system is a hassle, get over it. If it could save lives and help law enforcement, that should be enough. Especially if it gives you the ability to have more rights and even makes it easier to buy guns in the long run, if you are a good guy. It shouldn’t be easier to buy a gun than a car.

Also, you aren’t worried that the government is going to take your car, and we have crazy databases on those.

For those who would like to read some interpretation on the Second Amendment itself, that is coming quite soon, and I will link to that here when it is finished.

There are so many issues here I don’t know where to begin. As a former police officer I am often the biggest critic as well as the biggest defender of Law Enforcement. I try not to comment on things unless I see things that I think need clarification for those who haven’t worked in Law Enforcement, or if I see a blatant injustice going on, whether to a law enforcement officer or by one.

This is a case where I simply want to offer some insight from my perspective as a basic city cop.

The biggest clarification I see that needs to be made is the issue of this agent having his gun on him. Police Officers as well as Federal Agents have the right and in some situations the obligation (by policy) to have their firearm on them at any or all times. While I think this would have been very irresponsible if he was drinking, and we do not yet know if he was, he had every right to be armed. If that is the problem anyone has with this, it is a moot point. If he was in anyway intoxicated not only was he irresponsible, he may have violated policy.

As a professional federal agent I am so disappointed to see this happen. Here is my review of his failures. 1) The holster which held his firearm had poor retention. As a police officer we had training in academy on holsters both on and off duty and what level of retention they should have and also to practice different scenarios with them. You want to be able to retrieve your gun quickly without problem, but you not only don’t want it to come out on it’s own, but you don’t want a bad guy to be able to take it out easily. Believe it or not, most holsters aren’t just lift and remove. There is a trick to pulling the weapon. This obviously wasn’t one of those type of holsters and is very poor judgement on his part. 2) ANYONE who has had any firearms training knows the NUMBER 1 RULE: Don’t put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire and sure of your target. This agent picked up his gun and in the process not only put his finger on the trigger but fired it. Before you say it, NO this gun did not go off on it’s own upon impact. There is no firearm currently authorized by the Bureau for an agent to carry which hasn’t undergone accidental drop fire testing. 3) The worst thing of all that he did was after picking up the gun not only did he again not properly secure it. He raised his hands and walked away. Meanwhile, someone in the crowd not only had been hit, but allegedly was hit in a main artery in his leg and would have bled out if not for a Good Samaritan who placed a tourniquet on it. A responsible cop would have immediately secured the scene and checked for anyone with injuries and rendered aid.

This was obviously an accident, so I am unsure where the criminal charge comes in, but only time and facts will tell on that front. He has huge civil liability though because there was incredible negligence on his part. He will most likely lose his job either way.