Here in Colorado, some of our greatest political discord is over guns. The elephant in the room: There are more than 300 million firearms in private hands. That’s because the majority of private hands actually want them there. You can argue about it, but the facts won’t change.
More than a third of Americans own firearms (as many as 300 million weapons, according to Pew Research), without incident. Anti-gunners point out that if those guns hadn’t been there, the people pulling those triggers wouldn’t have used them. While that may be true, it’s also irrelevant. In China, mass murderers use knives. In this country, they’ve used explosives.
If we’re looking for common cause among mass shootings (defined by the FBI as the killing of four or more people in one incident), we need to look at the shooters. Most mass shootings have been carried out by political extremists or someone with either undiagnosed mental/emotional issues. In many cases involving mental illness, there was someone who could have reported the individual or attempted to get them help but didn’t.
Ammophobes ask why we can’t accept “reasonable” restrictions. The truth is that reasonable gun owners don’t object to reasonable restrictions that would actually make us safer. All too often, though, those calling for restrictions are the ones who have advocated confiscation. Before we agree on “reasonable” rules, we’d like to know whose definition of reasonable will be used.
Another point of contention is that many of the “reasonable” restrictions don’t actually address the problem. All too often, they wouldn’t make any real difference, even if they were put in place. It’s been said that if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That also holds true if you’re depending on rule changes to solve real-world problems. If every nail you drive is bent before it’s halfway into the wood, maybe the real problem isn’t your hammer.
I don’t usually feel unsafe in public, and if I do, I go somewhere else. But I do feel safe in my own home. I’ve been trained, and armed, at various times, by the U.S. Navy, the Glenview Trap and Skeet Club, and the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department. I won’t surrender my home, or the safety of my loved ones, without a fight. The Founding Fathers gave me that right.
The first phrase of the Second Amendment — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — gives us the rationale behind the amendment, not a prerequisite. Remember, in colonial times, the militia was composed of all males from 16 to 60. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” does not mean that right shall not be infringed unless someone objects.
Some argue the Second Amendment is no longer necessary, that society has changed. Should we then abolish the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery, as well? How about the 19th, the one that gave women the vote? These amendments were designed to keep all Americans safe and equal, and they do.
It is a clear-cut case of cause and effect. We agree on the effect. It’s the cause that’s the bone of contention.
This much is true: Whichever camp wins this argument, if they’re wrong, people will die. I can respect those who disagree with me on this. They’re not evil. I understand why they feel the way they do, and I respect them for the passion they bring to this very important subject.
But I think they’re wrong.
Military retiree Pete Lister of Greeley works in a telephone call center, serving military personnel and their families.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
