About two days ago, in our online community, I wrote about a premise on this subject, on which I agree with you. However, I think that “this” main string post on “Reciprocity”, would have been more closely related to my response.
I had written about this in our string titled, How Do You Help Guide This Tough Conversation? (link).
I used to believe in the very same ideas as those outlined by the author of the “Reciprocity” article, Kevin M., from the USCCA. He’s one of my favorite teachers on firearm education and safety. I also have great respect for the two gentlemen who opposed my views on the other string.
I accept that I’m in the minority with my stance. However, it’s because of my support in favor of us being able to legally bear arms, that I’m in favor of “certain” gun control, just not all. That’s why I propose not making blanket statements because that could hurt our cause.
From a research science view, just because an event or factor X occurs such as crime, does not mean that factor Y “gun control” caused it or prevented it.
Reason being, there are so many other variables. From high reliability science, which is practiced in the industries of nuclear power, commercial aviation, and healthcare, those remind us of the importance of reviewing countless studies, for validity, efficacy, which can withstand tests and scrutiny.
I had only taken a couple of courses on “research science”, so imagine those who are anti 2A, who have degrees in research science who can easily point out how certain correlations are not causal.
I’ll fight for our 2A rights, but I’d rather use different data, arguments, and strategies. A part of me believes we need to work with them, gain their ear, negotiate, so they see us as civilized, sophisticated, and that we too care about mitigating firearms from getting into the wrong hands (not to, will embolden them further).
For those who say if a criminal wants to hurt someone, he/she will find a way; that part of course anyone can understand, however, I just don’t want to be the one who gave him/her the gun. It reminds me about the true caliber of “other” people out there, where they are from, who they are, and what they are capable of.
I would be in favor of “limit” rules of firearms for former violent crime ex-felons, chronically mentally ill, and the developmentally or intellectually disabled. Remember when we had to take the car keys away from our beloved grandparents, and why. This is complex.
Look at the countless of posts about unsafe behavior at the range; So yes, education and training can improve the quality of our greater community. And who’s a better supporter of education and training than the USCCA.
Who else do we need to hear us? Mainstream society, who receive in the mail – actual legislative referendums, polls, and or actual ballot questions “if” they vote, asking them to help decide on gun laws in their region. How will they perceive us? How will the “quality” of our data be seen by them?
I’ve seen anti 2A literally cry in their testimony, how they want to walk the streets with their babies without the fear of bullets flying by them. How do I compete with that? Can we bring our families who also cry, describing how they were saved, or can live with less fear by us legally carrying our “arms”? I say yes, and that was my argument which silenced them.
One of my goals is to expand being able to “carry” into the workplace, and or have safes/lockers there for us who are not allowed to carry inside, so that when we walk home, or walk to our vehicles, we can “carry”.
Policies completely banning firearms, absolutely not; But certain rules, yes please. In caring about our community, my seeing us heading down a path which can hurt us, I want to help us, warn, and protect us. Thank you all, I’m with you brothers and sisters.