New Project Requests: Gun Control and Questioning the Second Amendment
New Project Requests: Gun Control and Questioning the Second Amendment
Searching for logical connections between issues and solutions in the gun debate
Project management is like herding cats.
But the job can be fun if you enjoy resolving issues to make people’s lives easier.
Some projects range from two-week durations to much longer, such as the Channel Tunnel between the UK and France, which took six years to complete.
Megaprojects like the Channel Tunnel benefit many people, while others only work to the advantage of a select few.
And many times, such limited-capacity ventures often hinder other people’s lives
Regardless of scope, all requesters think they have the most important project.
But organizations can only call on so many resources at once.
That’s why project managers require specific, defined issues and resolutions, or at least proposed resolutions that allow the team to break the project down into tangible work.
Its also important the organization fully understands how its initiatives impact other departments, customers, vendors, or other stakeholders.
For example, if I worked as a PM at a power company and a maintenance team requested to replace a section of poles immediately, or they’ll lose their annual bonus, we can’t just cut the power and get to work.
First, we must answer several questions, such as:
How long will the power be out?
What residences or buildings rely on that power?
Are there any medical facilities or critical infrastructure that rely on that power?
Do people in the area rely on that power for medical equipment?
Which roads must we close?
Do first responders have a viable workaround?
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
The maintenance team can’t just demand we turn off the power so they can focus on their schedule and potentially put people at risk, regardless of intent.
It doesn’t matter if the maintenance team doesn’t meet their annual goals, and it doesn’t matter if they lose their bonus or job.
Such projects must be appropriately planned to account for all risks and rewards.
When organizations rush projects, they often incur negative consequences if they don’t fail altogether.
Otherwise, the “solutions” may have severe consequences, intentional or not.
This is the problem with gun control.
What is the Problem?
First, I understand that the problem is senseless killing, especially of children like we saw in Uvalde last month.
We can all agree on that.
But Biden and other gun control advocates tell us that the Second Amendment and guns are the problems.
One person says handguns are responsible, while others blame AR-15s or high-capacity magazines.
Some suggest increasing the age to buy weapons or introducing background checks-even though we already have background checks.
Influencers and celebrities twist the words of the US Constitution while Biden rambles about deer in Kevlar.
Unfortunately, many beat a drum to repeal the Second Amendment entirely.
But what if we approached the issue as a project manager would?
Would a project manager sign off on additional gun control if we remove the heated emotions and logically question the proposed issues vs. proposed resolutions?
These project requesters blame the Second Amendment or guns themselves, but is there a logical cause and effect connection between rights, guns, and psychotic behavior?
Requests for Gun Control
Many people blame guns for violence.
Not criminals with guns, but the guns themselves.
We could argue that 38K people die a year in car accidents, and we don’t ban vehicles.
But let’s break these project requests down further and look for logical connections.
Submitted Issue: The AR-15 and “Assault Weapons/Rifles” Causes Violence
The AR-15 is perhaps the most popular firearm in recent history.
But what is the AR-15, specifically?
If you aren’t familiar with firearms, you may think of flashy and highly customized versions of the disputed weapon we see in movies or video games.
But out of the box, they’re plain rifles.
But why do gun control proponents claim that the AR-15 or “assault rifles” cause mass shootings or increased violence?
Before we go further, let’s define ‘assault rifle.’
The original assault rifle was the German Sturmgewehr 44 (Assault Rifle 44), invented in the 1940s, shown below.
An assault rifle is a rifle with a selector switch to change the fire rate from semi-automatic to fully automatic and uses a detachable magazine.
The standard AR-15 is not capable of firing on full auto and is therefore not an assault rifle.
“AR” represents Armalite, the name of the weapons manufacturer.
The AR-15 is the civilian version of the US military’s M-4 5.56mm Carbine, which is a gas-operated, air-cooled, magazine-fed, selective rate, shoulder-fired weapon with a collapsible stock.
The M-4 has semi-auto and three-round burst capabilities but is not fully auto like its predecessor, the M-16, introduced to the US military during the Vietnam War.
Among the most glaring differences between the M-16 and the M-4 is the original had a longer barrel, a long-fixed stock, smaller magazine capacity, and full-auto fire rate.
Therefore, the M-16 is an assault rifle.
Watch Kirsti here give us a demonstration of a fully automatic M-16:
Great job, Kirsti.
Now let’s watch Tactical Mia demonstrate semi-automatic or the legal rate of fire.
Skip to 1:19 for the AR-15, or watch the first bit to see Mia’s pistol skills.
Great aim, Mia, and happy belated birthday.
As we saw, that’s still a quick rate of fire, but nothing like full auto.
While many states already outlaw actual assault rifles, some people legally own them under highly regulated conditions.
For example, the assault rifle must date before 1986, and the state must not prohibit the weapon.
Licensing fees may exceed 15K, and people may wait over a year for approval.
Needless to say, potential owners of such weapons must jump through so many hoops to get them that many don’t have the time or money to deal with it.
And that’s what the government was aiming for.
Either way, we don’t typically see assault rifles in mass shootings.
Even in the case of the Las Vegas massacre, the shooter didn’t have a true automatic rifle-he used a bump stock which allowed the shooter to fire at an increased rate.
Here’s a guy from Missouri with more info and a demonstration.
Since the incident, the ATF deemed any weapon with a bump-stock as a machinegun-even though machine guns are defined as weapons with belt-fed ammunition like the M240B.
Yet although the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, many politicians and celebrities call to ban them.
Gang members use fully-automatic AK-47s, but we don’t hear of calls to ban weapons after a gun battle on the south side of Chicago.
That’s because anti-gun narratives are platforms for politicians to bait people for votes.
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle, machine gun, or “weapon designed to take mass life.”
Here’s the M240B, a weapon designed to take mass life, and keep the enemy’s heads down.
Let’s allow this fine Marine to show us how that weapon works.
As Crocodile Dundee would say: “Now that’s a gun!”
Proposed Solution: Ban AR-15s/” Assault Weapons”
While mass shooters use AR-15s, what impact would a ban have on the rest of Americans?
First, let’s define “mass shootings” as any incident where a shooter kills four or more people, which is a common definition.
Sounds like a warm summer night in Chicago.
But again, the media and politicians only focus on the public shootings as voters are more likely to relate to them.
Yet in 2020, only 3% of firearm murders included a rifle of any kind, and 16% of mass shootings involved an “assault weapon.”
Now here’s the thing, I know people argue about these facts and fight over the nuances of statistical origins.
I’m sure someone can make a fair argument against these stats, but let’s set that aside and focus on these proposed solutions to ban weapons.
If we ban the AR-15, what happens when someone kills people with a SCAR?
Do we ban all SCARs?
What about the Kel-Tec SU16C?
How about the Mini Ruger 14?
Since the Mini Ruger 14 shoots the same round as the AR-15, uses a detachable magazine, and has a semi-automatic rate of fire, the Mini Ruger 14 and AR-15 are effectively the same weapon.
Let’s take a look. Skip to 2:03 for the demo:
Nice range.
The main difference between the AR-15 and Mini Ruger 14 is the AR-15 has a pistol grip, whereas the Mini 14 has a rifle grip.
Also, the Mini Ruger 14 has a wooden stock in many instances, allowing more people to consider it a ‘rifle’ over an ‘assault weapon.”
The Mini Ruger just doesn’t have the portrayed “menacing look” of the AR-15.
So, where would banning AR-15s or “assault-style” weapons get us?
If we ban the AR-15, people will call to ban the SCAR or the Mini Ruger 14.
See where this goes?
Just because they look modern and “made for war” doesn’t make them more of a threat.
Speaking of war, what about snipers?
Here’s a photo of the M-24, a favorite among US Army sniper teams.
It shoots the same round as an AK-47 and M240B and is a variant of the Remington 700 hunting rifle, initially produced in 1956.
Soldiers use the M24 in war, yet they only fire one round at a time.
Sure, people can argue that these aren’t concerns in mass shootings with such a slow fire rate.
But did we not have the DC Sniper?
Of course, there aren’t near as many sniper incidents as close-quarter scenarios.
But what happens when we remove all semi-automatic weapons?
The people who would have reached for an AR-15 will simply opt to pick people off as the shooter did at the University of Texas in 1966.
So then what? Do we ban all bolt-action or single-shot rifles?
If we continue along a path of banning more weapons, future Americans will be packing muskets while cartel members Salsa across the border with fully automatic gold-plated AK-47s.
The truth is that most Americans safely use and store their rifles for protection, hunting, and sport.
And celebrities and politicians don’t even know what an assault rifle is.
Does the Second Amendment Protect the AR-15?
People argue that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the AR-15, and the Founding Fathers couldn’t anticipate the rapid-fire weapons of the 21st century.
But they didn’t need to anticipate them because they already had rapid-fire weapons.
To suggest people of the time didn’t know how technology advances is a ridiculous notion.
They already had rapid-fire weapons such as the Belton flintlock, puckle gun, pepperbox revolver, and Girandoni air rifle.
The Puckle Gun was one of the earliest machine guns, and the Pepperbox Revolver offered a quicker fire rate since the shooter could turn the barrels for a new round without reloading.
Also, James Madison wrote in his Letter of Marque that private boats reserved the right to arm themselves with cannons, and private merchant vessels were allowed to arm themselves with cannons for self-defense during both World Wars.
With rifles used in 3% of murders, it’s clear that banning the AR-15 would not reduce violence and punishes all for the evil acts of the few.
People use emotions to dictate laws, and these proposed gun control projects are only stepping stones to lead to the banning of all firearms.
“Hey gun nuts, we’re not coming for your guns!” democrats used to cry.
Yet here’s Beto O’Rourke in 2020 using emotions to get votes and telling us that he wants to take our guns.
These gun control projects resemble a frog in water slowly boiling on the stove.
They turn up the heat just a little bit here, just a little bit there, but by the time we realize the water is violently bubbling around us, it’s too late.
The AR-15 is a rifle, and it’s popular because it’s well made, accurate, and highly customizable.
That’s why the US military adopted it as their standard firearm.
But the controversial weapon gets a bad name because of common misconceptions, and in my opinion, for the way it looks and its portrayal in media.
After looking at the facts here, I don’t see how we can blame the AR-15 itself for anything.
These politicians and celebrities do not know anything about guns.
How can they be in charge of dictating laws around them?
Round Size
Let’s touch on something we rarely see in the media: round or bullet size.
Some might be surprised to find that firearms use many different round sizes.
Here are a few:
For reference, the AR-15 shoots #16.
The large rounds on the right are crew-served/anti-aircraft rounds, other than the shotgun shells.
While the military uses these large rounds in war, it makes sense that bigger bullets are necessary to hunt as game animals are much larger than people.
And to fire those larger rounds, you need a rifle, like an AR-15.
But nothing like #56, which is for the M2 Browning:
The rounds on the bottom would not be effective against anything but small animals.
Issue Submitted: Handguns are the Problem
In 2020, there were around 45,000 people killed by handguns in the US, according to the CDC.
That figure includes murders, suicides, and ‘other,’ which accounts for accidents and people killed by police.
Criminals prefer handguns for obvious reasons, as they are easy to conceal, sell, trade, and steal.
But the handgun issue is far more a problem with gang violence than anything else.
On Memorial Day weekend 2022 in Chicago, gang violence led to 52 people with gunshot wounds and nine killed.
Yet we don’t hear outrage about this.
We don’t see gubernatorial candidates storming Chicago Mayor Lightfoot’s press conferences and demanding we do something to stop the senseless killing of their city's youth the way Beto O’Rourke did with Governor Abbot in Texas.
Proposed Solution: Ban Handguns
While people use handguns to kill each other frequently, they aren’t the main focus for gun control advocates following mass shootings like Uvalde.
Yet Canadian dictator Justin Trudeau used the tragedy to propose a bill to ban the sale, purchase, transfer, or import of all handguns throughout Canada.
Also, the bill allows the government to “red flag” people that they deem a danger.
I know it’s Canada, but it’s still concerning as they influence American officials, such as their American Ambassador Bruce Heyman:
Yes, Bruce, Canada can teach us a lot.
So can North Korea and China.
But while handguns aren’t the focus of most mass shootings, they are well circulated throughout the country and often fall into the wrong hands.
Yet handguns prevent far more crime than they accessorize.
In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, a legal concealed carrier shot and killed a man that attempted to shoot up a graduation party.
If handguns or concealed carry were illegal, it would restrict the ability of people to defend themselves in such situations.
Statistically, citizens use firearms in defensive situations about 1.67 million times yearly.
That contrasts with the 45,000 handgun murders in 2020, as reported by the CDC.
As Joe Rogan mentioned, when you remove the guns, only the police and criminals have them.
Just look at Chicago, which has some of the country’s strictest gun control laws.
Yet here’s a stand-up citizen posing for a news crew and pointing a pistol at the cameraman for fun as he danced around the area.
Whoever was looking through that camera must have thought that was it.
These requests to ban guns to stop violence don’t add up.
Submitted Issue: High-Capacity Magazines are the Problem
Now let’s talk about high-capacity magazines.
But again, let’s first define them.
High-capacity magazines are those capable of holding more than ten rounds.
The M-4/AR-15 takes 30 round magazines, but 5-10 round and drum magazines are also available.
Of course, a 30-round or drum magazine is not something we want in the hands of a mass shooter, especially in areas where police do not have AR-15s.
According to stats, mass shooters used high-capacity magazines over half the time.
Proposed Solution: Ban High-Capacity Magazines
Now, why do we need high-capacity magazines?
Is it because deer have Kevlar vests, as Biden likes to say?
Are high-capacity magazine use cases restricted to the military?
As previously stated, people do not react to gunshot wounds like in movies or video games where they drop after one shot.
Between adrenaline and narcotics, humans can withstand a surprising amount of shots before they no longer pose a threat.
In 2008, Officer Timothy Gramins with the Skokie, Illinois police department responded to a bank robbery where he engaged with the suspect as he fled the scene.
After a heated gun fight, the suspect did not go down after taking 14 rounds of .45 caliber ammunition from Gramins’ Glock 45.
These are fatal wounds, but the suspect continued to fire with multiple weapons.
After the suspect finally went down, Gramins only had four rounds left.
Close call.
The officer and the suspect went to the hospital, where the suspect still had signs of life.
Look at bullet #8, the suspect withstood 14 of them, one in the heart-and he kept firing.
As Gramins shook from the event in the hospital, he overheard a doctor say, “Why did the officer have to shoot him so many times?”
It’s because they weren’t in a movie.
Gramins says he now carries a minimum of 145 rounds every day.
Here’s a full breakdown of the incident if you’re interested:
It’s certainly possible to kill someone with one round if you can hit the off switches just right, but assaulting criminals rarely stands still for people trying to aim at them in self-defense.
And sometimes, even if you hit those off switches, the threat remains in cases like the one just described.
Gramins was a veteran officer and a member of the SWAT team, and he struggled to neutralize the threat.
How can we expect everyday citizens to do better?
We must account for the armed citizen’s ability to shoot accurately.
If someone breaks in the window while you’re asleep, you must wake up and react effectively.
To do that, you need more rounds.
It can be challenging for everyday people to hit a target at a firing range without stress.
Think about how difficult it could be after waking up from a dead sleep knowing there is an immediate threat to your family.
Additionally, banning high-capacity magazines would indirectly ban many weapons.
Since many guns require magazines with ten or more rounds, the law would render many handguns illegal by default.
Many parts of the US already ban high-capacity magazines:
New York
California
Washington, DC.
New Jersey
Colorado
And here are a few examples of mass shootings:
Buffalo, NY supermarket shooting
The Brooklyn Subway Terrorist
The church shooting in California
DC sniper shooting
Bridgeton, NJ
Boulder, CO
If someone wants to commit a mass shooting, they’ll get more magazines or weapons, or buy them illegally as the Skokie bandit did, and high-capacity mags would still be illegal for law-abiding citizens.
While it’s unfortunate that mass shooters obtain these magazines, a ban would put more law-abiding citizens at risk as it would restrict their ability to defend themselves.
Requests to Amend/Repeal the Second Amendment
There’s some crossover with these gun control project requests, but I’m trying to separate them between actions taken against physical firearms vs. the right to bear arms.
And now that we talked about the main arguments against physical firearms let’s talk about constitutional rights.
For reference, here is the Second Amendment:
Issue Submitted: Right to Own a Firearm is Too Low
The Uvalde shooter was just over 18 years old, and reports indicate that most mass shooters are under 21.
According to the New York Times, six of the nine deadliest mass shooting incidents since 2018 involved shooters 21 or younger.
We know today’s youth are generally less mature and don’t make the best decisions in their younger years.
With more kids on drugs, social isolation, and living most of their lives online, it’s fair to say kids are less responsible today than they were 50-100 years ago.
For that, many people argue the age to buy firearms should increase from 18 to 21.
So, could raising the legal age to buy firearms prevent mass shootings?
Proposed Solution: Increase Legal Age to Buy Firearms
The US federal law says citizens must be 21 to buy handguns, but one must be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun.
Many are open to this idea, but we must be consistent with what we define as “an adult.”
Traditionally, people started working in their teens and married before they were 21.
Now that we’ve become overly comfortable, safe, and generally encouraged to go to college rather than work, many don’t take full responsibility until well into our twenties or more.
Maybe we should increase the legal age to 21 to buy all firearms.
But you also have to increase the age to join the military to 21 and the age to buy tobacco, vote, etc.
I know it’s a trite thing to say, but you can’t train 18 year old’s with M-4s and send them to war and not let them have an AR-15 for protection or sport at home.
It’s already unfair they can’t buy a beer.
But leftist politicians count on 18-21-year-olds for votes because they bait them with their emotions.
In addition, the military counts on those young Americans to protect our country.
There could be some common ground here, but we must define what an adult is across the board.
Submitted Issue: Failure to Run Background Checks is the Problem
The Uvalde shooter appeared insane, as evidenced by the video of him holding a bag of dead cats, and people knew the shooter for hurting animals.
According to an ABC article, others said he was violent, and others reported the shooter admitted to cutting himself, saying “he liked the way it looked.”
Upon hearing this, many people question why this didn’t arise in a background check.
In short, it’s because nobody bothered to say anything.
The store that sold the weapons to the shooter ran a background check, which the shooter passed.
Proposed Solution: Implement Background Checks/Red Flag Laws
Most states already have background checks-as Texas does-but these checks do not account for everything, as they only see documented criminal or mental health backgrounds.
If nobody speaks up, no background check will stop a mentally disturbed person from purchasing a firearm.
This is proof that we can’t rely on the government to manage all risks at individual levels.
Red Flag Laws
As previously mentioned, Canadian Dictator Brandeau imposed additional gun control, including red flag laws.
Red flag laws allow citizens to report potentially dangerous people with firearms in hopes of preventing a crime by restricting their guns.
That sounds fine on the surface, but when people can simply label others as a threat without sufficient evidence, we have to be careful.
In the case of Uvalde, there’s a good chance the police would have restricted the shooter’s firearms if they knew what we would later find out about the offender.
But I haven’t seen reports of anyone notifying law enforcement that the shooter was a potential threat to the community.
In this case, maybe a red flag action would have avoided the incident.
Still, how could that law be used against law-abiding citizens, and how do we handle false reporting?
Could any citizen sick the police on anyone they didn’t like who happened to own guns?
The Uvalde shooter would have been a clear-cut case of a mentally disturbed gun owner, and I don’t think people would have an issue restricting his weapons.
Maybe we could use juries in such cases.
Either way, we can likely find common ground on doing a better job of observing our neighbors and determining if they are a threat while ensuring we don’t give the government free rein to restrict anyone they deem as “concerning.”
Submitted Issue: The Second Amendment Applies to 18th Century Militias, Not Individuals
As we read, the Second Amendment starts with “a well-regulated militia,” referring to the future Americans that fought the British.
The militias were de-centralized bands of trained fighters that mustered when needed to protect their land and people dating back to the 17th century.
“Minutemen,” as we called them because they could be ready at a “minute’s notice,” kept their weapons in their homes, and when needed, they took them into service.
To keep all weapons in a centralized location for Minutemen to distribute would be a tactical blunder as the British could effectively disarm the patriots by cutting off access or destroying the weapons caches.
Therefore, militiamen kept their weapons at home at all times.
And once we achieved independence, the militias continued to serve.
These militias evolved into the National Guard, and in 1916, the US Army adopted the National Guard into its ranks, and the Air Force created the Air National Guard in 1947.
But as technology improved, the country grew, and more citizens armed themselves, the militia became less popular.
Now, National Guard troops keep assigned weapons in large vaults inside secured National Guard Armories.
For that, gun control proponents argue the Second Amendment is no longer relevant.
Proposed Solution: Remove Individual Rights to Bear Arms
Specifically, gun control advocates suggest that the Second Amendment only applied to colonial Soldiers, not private citizens.
Of course, The Revolutionary War happened because people were tired of living under a monarchy, so they did something no country had successfully done in world history.
After gaining independence, it would not have made sense for Americans to say, “Well, we beat the biggest army in the world against all odds. I guess we don’t need these weapons anymore.”
It is baseless to suggest that another country could not invade the US or that the US government itself couldn’t pose a threat to its people.
Humans naturally want control, and American humans are just as capable of forming an overreaching totalitarian regime just as societies have done for thousands of years.
Admittedly, concern about government threats to freedom ten years ago was less of a “conspiracy theory” than it is today.
But after what we saw the US government and the rest of the world do during 2020, we got a sobering reminder that freedom is not guaranteed and no government is capable of looking out for everyone at all times.
In addition to government overreach during 2020, politicians encouraged violence.
Law-abiding citizens sealed their homes and hoped the violent mobs didn’t come to their houses.
Democrat US Representative Maxine Waters encouraged citizens to “get more confrontational” if Derek Chauvin was acquitted.
And don’t forget her rant about calling out her political oppositions and confronting them in public to make sure they know “they aren’t welcome.”
But it’s not just the politicians.
During Donald Trump’s early presidency, Antifa and other protesters became increasingly violent as they shut down free speech through “direct action,” which is their interpretation of violence.
Why should we give up our right to protect ourselves when law enforcement can’t be everywhere?
It’s simple math.
According to FBI data from 2018, the national officer-to-citizen ratio was 2.4 officers per 1,000 citizens.
It’s up to individuals to take responsibility and protect their families, neighbors, and property.
Could we expect the US military to do the same thing if invaded?
There’s a contested quote from WW2 by Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto that says, “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
History may not confirm this quote, but its sentiment rings true.
But let’s wrap this section up with a confirmed dose of truth:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. -George Mason
The Real Problems: Counter Issues and Counter Proposals
There’s never one easy solution when discussing mass shootings, gangs, or violence in general.
Humans are inherently violent, and we will always have evil people in the world, regardless of laws or technology.
It’s a sociological question that we could talk about for another 10,000 words.
But the question is, how do we limit that in regards to firearms?
Even if guns didn’t exist, people would still kill each other for indiscriminate reasons as they did for thousands of years before the advent of black powder.
So we have to separate problems with guns and laws, behavioral health, and protection practices.
Counter Issue: Culture
We certainly have cultural issues in the United States.
With more people on drugs and mental health issues on the rise, we know there is a connection between culture and violence, and see signs of societal decay in cities like Chicago and New York.
Our lower-income communities consist of primarily broken homes, and most inhabitants have little opportunity to make it in the outside world.
Proposed Long-Term Solution: Improve Values
This proposed solution is a broad and subjective topic; I don’t claim to have all the answers.
But for all the technological and social advances over the past fifty years, we’ve neglected the mental health crisis.
Medical advancements work wonders for many people, but we often lean on them too much.
Between the War on Drugs, prison overpopulation, over-prescribing, and the breakdown of the nuclear family, people are becoming less focused on positive advancement and more reliant on the government to run their lives.
Young people go to school for useless degrees, start working in their mid-twenties with a mountain of debt, and often don’t find a job to justify the investment.
Americans continue to shove their faces with garbage from the burger drive-thru and don’t drink water.
Instead, we pump ourselves full of sugar and drugs and wonder why we can’t sit still.
Then we prescribe another drug for fidgeting.
All these things combined chip away at a civilized and advanced society over time.
People need a proper purpose, and when we neglect mental health and our kids, you get Uvalde, Columbine, and Sandy Hook.
America has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. -Joe Rogan
Counter Issue: Security
People are upset about Uvalde, as I am-it’s terrible.
I don’t mean to suggest that dead kids are an acceptable trade-off for Americans to legally own firearms.
We have a problem, and we must work together to fix it.
But we have to attack the right problem.
In the 21st century, people have grown accustomed to an on-demand lifestyle.
If you want to know the closest galaxy to our Milky Way, you can find out in two seconds.
How about dinner? You can have it at your door in 15 minutes with about three clicks on your phone.
This notion of “waiting” in 2022 has become a thing of the past.
And that way of thinking works its way into gun control, and people think they can simply pass a law to stop the violence.
That’s not how it works.
We, as a society, are willing to drive cars, knowing over 32,000 people die and two million are injured yearly from auto accidents.
But instead of banning cars, we seek to improve vehicle and driver safety. And we can do the same with firearms.
Since the invention of the Ford Model-T, car safety has improved astronomically, and we’ve learned to drive safer.
But it took time, and people want to stop the violence now.
The good news is that there are actionable items people can do to prevent future shootings.
Pizza’s Here
To do that, let me tell you a little about a job I had years ago.
I used to deliver pizzas, and before each run, I made sure I had the order right by grabbing the correct box, sides, and drinks, and I reviewed any special requests such as “don’t ring the doorbell, baby’s asleep.”
Forgetting something, or worse, waking a baby, was a tip killer.
But if I was going to a hospital, school, or university building, there was one thing I needed: a phone number.
Not the landline the customer left but a personal cell phone that the customer would answer.
Why?
Because they locked hospitals and schools like Fort Knox, it wasn’t easy to let the customer know you’d arrived.
Without a phone number, I might be stuck at an entrance while security or someone tracked down the customer.
I frequented these schools and daycare facilities daily, and teachers and staff recognized me as a legitimate delivery person, but they didn’t care, which was fine.
They didn’t care if it was raining or 100 degrees.
The same went for the hospitals.
The guards would tell me, “Hey, I know you’re not a threat here, and I recognize you, but we have a policy.”
Fair enough, if it were my kids, I wouldn’t want anyone getting in the school either, pizza or not.
Schools and hospitals have vulnerable people inside, and security procedures must reflect that.
Counter Short-Term Solution: Improve Security
How did the Uvalde shooter get into the school?
There were initial reports of a door left open, but then they reversed that claim saying it was closed when the shooter approached the school.
Either way, the shooter found some way into the building.
Secure Entrances and Exits
There should be one way in and many ways out.
That one entrance must be locked and monitored, and staff must regularly check all doors and windows.
Your local McDonald’s probably checks burger temperatures more often than some people check secured entrances at vulnerable locations.
There’s no reason that schools shouldn’t follow a daily checklist to ensure people cannot get in that shouldn’t.
Armed Security
Schools vary in funding, but most can afford at least one armed guard to patrol the grounds and deter threats.
To be fair, some studies say armed bank guards increase the chance of violence, which is why many banks have guards without weapons.
It makes sense that a gun battle would ensue when two opposing parties have guns and pose a threat to each other.
But most robbers don’t want to engage with anyone; they just want the money and to get away as soon as possible.
That’s why bank employees cooperate with robbers. We let them have the money and go, it’s all insured anyway.
On the other hand, if an armed school guard saw someone approaching the building with a weapon, they would know their intent was not to steal school supplies, and cooperating will only get you killed.
Therefore, armed guards must engage shooters immediately.
We see other high-profile businesses like cannabis dispensaries and community colleges with armed guards.
There’s no reason why other schools should go unprotected.
School Resource Police Officer(s)
Most larger schools already have resource officers, along with private armed guards.
These are full-time local police officers dedicated to the schools that assist with discipline and deterrence.
On June 10th, 2022, a school resource officer shot and killed an aggressive 32-year-old male after attempting to break into nearby vehicles and school entrances.
After a concerned citizen noticed the aggressor, she called the police, where the resource officer and other responding officers confronted the suspect, ultimately fatally shooting the suspect.
There were 32 children inside, but the report didn’t say if the man had weapons on him.
Either way, all 32 children went home unscathed, and likely ignorant of the incident altogether.
Armed Teachers
People often question whether teachers should be armed.
But really, the question is, should we allow teachers to arm themselves?
What I mean is that carrying a firearm should not be required by any teacher.
But, if a teacher is a responsible gun owner proficient with firearm fundamentals and safety, they should be allowed to maintain a weapon on school grounds.
If students knew a teacher or multiple staff members were armed, it could deter shooters.
But if someone did threaten the lives of students and staff, they must have the means to fight back.
Gun-free zones don’t deter shooters.
While Uvalde is in Texas, and one would expect guns to be present, the school is a gun-free zone.
Therefore, the shooter entered confidently that he would be the only one shooting.
Secure Your Firearms
99% of all vehicle “break-ins” are due to unlocked doors.
Most thieves prefer to casually and quietly shop around and simply try the doors instead of smashing windows and attracting attention.
Even if an alarm goes off, nobody calls the police, they just turn it off and roll back to sleep.
People have a false sense of security that if the car is at home or in the driveway, nobody will help themselves to anything of value inside the vehicle.
And that’s not true-criminals know that people in higher-income neighborhoods are less likely to lock their doors because of this belief and seek them out.
When gun owners get complacent and leave weapons readily available under a seat or glove box, they end up in the wrong hands.
Counter Issues: Politicization in Media/Lack of Knowledge
We know the mainstream media forms stories to support their narratives.
But in addition, people are generally ignorant of gun knowledge even when specific shootings aren’t in question.
Counter Issue: Media Polarization
The world often blames the US for being the epicenter of mass shootings and violence.
While the US has its fair share of bloodshed, we aren’t the leader.
Did you hear about the church shooting in Nigeria on June 5th, 2022 that took the lives of 50 people as I write this?
Probably not.
When it comes to comparing countries, some people don’t realize how large the United States is, so we must view them per capita.
Here’s a list of the leading countries with the highest homicide rate per capita in 2018:
El Salvador 52
Jamaica 43
Lesotho 43
Honduras 38
The US stands at less than five murders per 100K people.
And here’s the top list of countries with the most mass shootings per capita:
1 - Norway 1.9
2 - Serbia 0.4
3 - Macedonia 0.3
The United States is 11th at 0.09
But the media portrays the US differently as they shape violent stories to form a narrative that American rights and guns are the cause of our violence.
They’ll ignore the story if they can’t get the story to fit a mold to promote gun control.
Unfortunately, many people do not or can not follow the news, so the little information they hear is typically left-leaning.
That’s why it makes sense how casual news feed followers could conclude that America is a bad place.
But for people that follow the news, the propaganda tactics are clear.
As I mentioned, two weeks ago, a man tried to shoot up a graduation party and was stopped by a law-abiding citizen with a gun.
Also, an armed carjacker was shot and killed in Alexandria, Virginia, last month after attempting to steal a car.
Unfortunately for the armed would-be carjacker, the driver was herself armed and shot and killed him first.
But the mainstream media doesn’t cover stories much when guns save lives.
Counter Issue: Lack of Common Gun Knowledge
People have a right not to defend themselves or not take an interest in firearms.
But when people in control assault the Second Amendment and attempt to increase gun control, they should get their facts straight.
We have Biden telling people that 9mm rounds can blow a lung out, which is ridiculous.
Biden also offers terrible advice for protecting against a home invasion:
"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.” -President Joe Biden
Great advice, dispense all your ammunition with a weapon that’s slow to reload before engaging with a threat.
Reloading a shotgun might be relatively quick on a range, but not when a meth head bolts up the stairs into your bedroom.
Not to mention, carelessly firing into the dark in a residential area is a gross violation of gun safety.
Additionally, such an act would likely earn that homeowner a trip to jail for reckless behavior or aggravated discharge of a firearm.
I understand that people’s interest in guns varies across a spectrum.
But you must know the facts if you demand additional gun control and assault fundamental freedoms.
You’re way out of your league if you don’t know the difference between auto and semi-auto.
If you don’t know what an assault rifle is, you must learn about it if you want to ban it.
Immediately following the Uvalde incident, many people protested outside the NRA headquarters, and Whoopi Goldberg told the NRA that AR-15s have “got to go".
People attack the NRA for guns, but nobody’s outside Pfizer’s doors for the 1,000,000 plus people that overdosed on opiates during the pandemic alone.
In 2021, gun lobbies spent about $15.8 million, a fraction of what other industries shelled out:
Pharma: $356.6 million
Electronics: $179 million
Insurance: $153 million
How many protesters take to the Big Pharma headquarters for the opiate crisis and call for the banning of Hydrocodone?
Proposed Counter Solution: Replace Fear of Guns with Respect and Knowledge
As guns are highly politicized, many people will never come to a healthy respect or understanding for firearms.
That’s why a Philadelphia gun store invited an anti-gun journalist to his range to get a feel for the most hated weapon in the country.
Here’s what the journalist said following his visit:
The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.
Give me a break.
You saw seven-year-old Mia on the range.
Again, this doesn’t negate the deadliness of this weapon.
But when journalists push ignorant anti-gun sentiments, we all see it’s just a political show.
I’m not a firearms expert.
And I’m not saying everyone should seek an advanced level of firearms knowledge.
Still, if you have the power to sway people’s opinions as a journalist or push legislation, you must have a higher level of weapons knowledge.
But Why?
After reviewing each proposed issue and resolution, it’s easy to see that the proposed changes don’t directly correlate to the submitted problems.
As project managers that accepted such pursuits, we would be accountable when violence fails to cease and instead, increases after implementing further gun control.
Are there things we can do to improve weapons safety?
Sure, but the root problem is culture.
We have a severe mental health issue in this country, which is the actual problem.
No law or restriction will fix that.
There’s another common misconception we haven’t talked about: the misconception that the left hates guns.
And that’s just not true. The left loves guns.
But only when they’re used to legally control people, not when people use them to protect themselves.
This notion isn’t a leftist idea, at least not originally-human beings naturally want to control people.
Maybe initially they don’t, but once given control, humans tend not to want to give it up and seek more.
Consider the Stanford Prison Experiment, where researchers attempted to observe human behavior in authoritarian scenarios.
The researchers split the participants into prisoners and corrections officers.
Within four days, researchers discharged several people from the experiment after they experienced emotional trauma from the over-zealous guards.
But we don’t need to rely on social experiments from the 1970s to prove that humans seek to control each other.
Just look at the modern world.
The Chinese currently keep Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps, and slavery is not a thing of the past.
According to UNICEF and ILO, people forced almost 80 million children aged 5-17 to work in 2021.
Also, according to estimates, one in 130 women and girls are forced into marriage or sex work.
But as much as we like to think that we’re beyond genocide or any human atrocities found throughout history, the truth is, we’re not.
I don’t like to push these stories to instill fear in people.
Believe me, I’d love to think the world was ice cream and unicorns where everyone loved one another.
But it’s naive to do so.
Going back to my example in the intro, these leftist politicians want to replace the power lines right now and use emotions to cut the power.
They don’t care if your medical equipment stops working.
They don’t care if your food spoils.
And they don’t care if there’s no path for first responders to get to you after the road closes.
They don’t care if guns are illegal for you but rest assured they have armed bodyguards to protect them and their families.
They just want your vote and use mass shootings like Uvalde to get it, just like they did in 2020.
And look what that got us.
Maybe we’re so far distanced from the American Revolution that we’ve collectively forgotten what an authoritarian government feels like.
But I know one thing: if we continue down this path of incrementally banning weapons and reducing rights, we’re in for a nasty reminder.