Connecticut Gun Control Bill

213. Only slow kids need play here.

I noticed in the endless stream of AP news items that Connecticut has passed a wide-ranging gun control bill that places important controls on gun ownership. I was looking for links to news stories and I refuse to link to Fox News, any New York City toilet rag, or the New York Times only because their links aren’t durable and so there is no point to link to them in a blog, historically the links just bellyflop years later. CNN articles from 2006? Good luck with that. So, Connecticut has new gun safety laws. This makes Connecticut more attractive option to migration for me. The law makes the state safer than the other states, and that opens up a new line of pressure for the states to decide on their gun laws. It’ll be less about personal liberties and the overworked 2nd Amendment and more about population dynamics and taxpayers. If all your taxpayers decide to move to a state where their children won’t be shot randomly, then they will be paying taxes to that state and not the more dangerous ones. These bills could become new tools for state tourism authorities to promote their states when it comes to safety. “Come and visit Connecticut, we are safer.” If it becomes an actual population pressure, then I bet more states will start adopting gun control laws in order to retain their populations. The only thing that a state really fears is negative migration. Perhaps it’s time to stop talking about guns, ammunition and magazines and start talking about public safety issues. It’s subterfuge of course, but really it’s not. It’s got more to do with living children than dead ones.

The image of a dead toddler is the one thing that the NRA cannot blot out. That image sears itself into anyone who looks on it. All your arguments mean nothing when launched over a 3 foot long coffin! It’s a wretched commentary on American life that it takes dead children to force adults to cut the shit and take things like guns seriously.

These aren’t fun little toys, they are tools of death.

An Open Letter to State Senator Tonya Schuitmaker

State Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker votes for bill to exempt Michigan-made guns from federal regulations | MLive.com.

Dear State Senator Schuitmaker,

I read the article above and I understand the political drive that stands behind your decision to pursue this action but as a concerned citizen of Kalamazoo Michigan I beg you to reconsider your actions. Regulating guns is actually part of the directive from the Second Amendment, an amendment that I know you hold very near and dear to your heart. The text of it contains this phrase “A well-regulated militia” and so, in that context we both can agree.  The state has a well-regulated militia, represented primarily by the National Guard, and all the state, county, town, and township Police. What makes Michigan-made guns so special? Do you think that somehow exempting Michigan from these regulations, which you know would never work anyways, would somehow bring jobs, money, or praise to our beleaguered state? The answer Senator is not more guns, but well-regulated militias. Well regulated militias with well-regulated guns.

Let us put talk about politics aside just briefly and discuss what I am really getting at here. How many people must be killed before guns lose their allure to you? How many perforated children must lie dead at your feet for you to consider that perhaps stricter controls on guns, and yes, gun manufacturing may be a good idea? I and the rest of the citizenry would really quite like to know. If you have not seen the news recently we have two epidemics sweeping the land. One is influenza, and the other is gun crimes. While there is little to nothing that a legislator can do about influenza, you can do something about access to guns for these criminals. Let us speak plainly here, people are broken. Your citizenry are sick. Many people have untreated and undiagnosed mental disorders which interfere with rational cognition yet these people have no problem acquiring guns and ammunition and killing other people. These are criminals, and the law does not prevent them from accessing guns.

The classic republican design for guns is rooted not in lawful behavior but actually in mutually assured destruction. Republicans would quite enjoy it if every person was armed, because then the notion of gun violence, in the republican way of thinking, would evaporate. This design may work and I admit there may be something to it worth at least thinking about, but there is one problem to this design. Some citizens are mentally ill. Would you hand a mentally ill person a weapon and expect them to rationally consider mutually assured destruction? What if they are plagued by voices or have rage control problems? What does the republican model say in that situation? It devolves into a mexican standoff, moments before a blood bath. The Republican Party has a choice. You can go either way forward from the fork of gun control or addressing the mental health crisis in America. You can’t have it both ways. Either everyone gets guns and the mentally ill are cared for or there are strict gun controls and the mentally ill are left as they are.

So, Senator Schuitmaker, as a concerned voter in Kalamazoo I ask that you please reconsider this position. You can think of any part of your constituency when you make these decisions. The potential victims, men, women, and children and the various mentally ill people who mingle amongst us. We don’t ask for gun bans, but we do ask for gun regulations and I am willing to trade damaging the economics of gun manufacturers in this state so that we do not have to endure any more headlines about a field of dead children.