Fillmore County Journal

"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"

Gun violence – a possible path forward?

by

By David Webb, MD

Lanesboro, MN

With some Americans increasingly willing to embrace violence as a means of achieving their political ends, others predictably respond with renewed clamoring for firearm regulation. Debate quickly devolves into shouting matches, neither side listening to the other, both sides invoking the US Constitution. “What part of ‘shall not be abridged’ don’t you understand?” vs. “Well, what part of ‘well regulated’ don’t you understand?”

At the risk of alienating everyone on both sides, I would dare suggest there might be a reasoned path forward. First, for the sake of discussion, we set aside partisan rhetoric. Second, except for what the Founding Fathers signed onto as our “inalienable right to life,” we disregard for the time being our supposed legal rights and focus instead on the logic of the issue. Then, we each try to answer this simple question, “Why, as a nonmilitary, non-law enforcement, private citizen, do I want or need firearms?” Some possible answers:

1. I want to off the rats getting into my corn crib, the skunk getting into my henhouse, or the raccoon getting into my garbage can. (IMHO, if you’re so inept at handling firearms that you think you need an AR-15 for this purpose, you probably shouldn’t be allowed to touch one.)

2. I like/need to hunt game.

3. I enjoy target shooting.

4. I collect historical weapons.

5. I want to be able to defend hearth and home against intruders.

6. I want to be able to intimidate or to kill anyone I perceive to be threatening me, whenever, wherever.

7. I want to be able to intimidate or to kill lots of people rapidly.

8. I am keen to participate in the imminent civil/race war.

9. I want to be able to take out machine guns, tanks, Black Hawks, drones, or whatever weapons the government might try to deploy against me.

How you answered the question would logically determine what kinds of firearms would be appropriate for your wants and needs and when, where, and under what circumstances it would be appropriate to carry and use them. If you concur with answers 6-9, you need read no further. If you believe that there might be a better way of resolving differences than trying to kill each other, please read on.

A well known verse in the book of Ecclesiastes, traditionally ascribed to King Solomon, reads “To every thing there is a season…” In the “Wild West,” Wyatt Earp applied the concept in establishing and maintaining law and order. To paraphrase, “Cowboys, you may need your six-shooters out on the range to defend against rustlers, coyotes, and rattlesnakes. Here in Dodge though, while you can carouse with your pals, drink in the saloons, and dance with the ladies, you can’t go shooting up the place. I’m not confiscating your guns, but you’ll have to check them when you come into town, and you’ll get them back when you ride out.” I believe that a Solomonic-Earp approach could still work here to curb gun violence, especially mass murders – just “get the guns off the streets.”

“But wait,” you say, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Rubbish! It’s certainly not the only way, and as the social experiment of the last several decades has proven, it’s not a particularly good way. Deregulation and proliferation of firearms in this country has only resulted in ever-increasing gun violence, in sharp contrast to other English-speaking, gun-loving countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, where regulation has drastically curbed gun violence.

“Well, if public carrying of guns is outlawed, only outlaws will be carrying guns.” Precisely! If someone with an assault weapon was waltzing down the street, towards a playground, school, political rally, or peaceful protest, into a restaurant, bank, library, church, clinic, or city council meeting, it would be presumed that he was up to no good. Those whose jobs it is to serve and to protect us (law enforcement), could and should confront him, disarm him, and arrest him.

Then no one in government need bother about our guns safely kept in our own homes.

Comments

  1. You all apparently missed the question mark in the title, and I am not as naive as some of you have supposed. I ran this “pile of drivel” up the proverbial flag pole to see if anyone would salute. As I had anticipated, no one did, which just goes to show that the liberals’ pipe dream of gun control in our country is just that. The actual take home point is that if some of us are going to go around in public with lethal weapons, we probably all should. As the clueless victim of Kyle Rittenhouse learned too late, you don’t take a skateboard to a gun fight. I don’t know if the young man would still be alive if he’d been carrying an Uzi instead, but at least he would have been able to return fire.

    • “As the clueless victim of Kyle Rittenhouse learned too late, you don’t take a skateboard to a gun fight.”

      So you got it wrong. Rittenhouse is the victim. Not a random rioter looking to loot and burn things in the darkness of night under the guise of “protesting.” Rittenhouse was trying to go home and leave the area. But the rioters wanted to intimidated him. Wanted to pressure him. They weren’t going to let him leave peacefully. And like a pack of wolves they circled him and tried to get him when he was vulnerable. Luckily for Rittenhouse, he brought a weapon for self protection. A good one. One suitable for the job. Turns out he needed that weapon. And as the jury determined, they couldn’t blame him for his actions. After all, he was there to clean graffiti from protesting rioters that wanted to spray paint churches and schools, and he was there to protect local businesses from felonious arson, described by the media, as a “mostly peaceful protest” which is ridiculous. In other words – Rittenhouse was a good guy with a gun, who defended himself from a pack of wolves.

      Rittenhouse wouldn’t have even been there, if it wasn’t for felonious arsonists and rioters looking to unreasonably destroy the city for what a couple specific people in law enforcement did, and those rioters paid the price, some with their lives, as well they should.

      • You seem to be a better mind reader than I. Perhaps Rittenhouse, perceiving the Kenosha Police and Fire Departments incapable of doing their jobs, did decide it necessary to go to Kenosha to save the city, which he did not. The fact is that he did travel to another state equipped, ready, willing, and able to kill people, which he did (“victims” according to Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries if not to you). Perhaps the guy with the skateboard, after witnessing Rittenhouse kill someone and perceiving the Kenosha Police Department incapable of doing its job, did decide it necessary to chase Rittenhouse down and disarm him, which he did not accomplish. The fact is that he had gone to a protest against racial injustice in his own hometown, as were the vast majority of protesters was not a looter or arsonist, was unarmed, and was shot and killed. I dare say that both he and Rittenhouse perceived themselves to be “the good guy” and the other to be “the bad guy,” perceived themselves to be “threatened” and the other to be “threatening,” but that’s not for me to decide. My point which you missed entirely is that if everyone has the prerogative to decide on the spur of the moment who is the good guy, who is the bad guy, and has the legal right to set themselves up as instantaneous judge, jury, and executioner, then it would be foolish for any of us to go about unarmed. Thus far, under the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, the nations of the world have escaped nuclear holocaust. Similarly, perhaps firearm parity for all individuals is indeed the best way to achieve personal and public safety.

  2. First things first. What is your aim? Disarming me? Or stopping gun related violent episodes? If it’s the first, I will use the Second A to prevent you from doing so. If it’s the second, you are barking up the wrong tree. Firearms have been a common item in life my entire life, and my father’s entire life. neither of us or our contemporaries committed the atrocities you worry about. Of course we had Faith and Family on our side. A home with a father figure and Christ as our center. Societies downfall is not caused by a tool, it is caused by degeneracy, hedonism, and the belief in Nothing greater than your own desires. All societies fall when this happens!

  3. What we have here, Dr. Webb, is a difference in worldviews. From your article, I submit that your worldview can be summarized in five salient points:

    1. Guns frighten me.
    2. I think there are very few valid reasons for gun ownership by the civilian population.
    3. Citizens who own guns for reasons I consider invalid are foolish, irrational, and violent.
    4. My personal safety is guaranteed by violent people willing to do violence on my behalf.
    5. Our Constitution is an obsolete document not suited for modern society.

    You do realize that all three countries you enthusiastically specify as exemplar, non-violent societies forcibly confiscated firearms from law-abiding citizens. Even with that draconian action implemented, none of the three countries are immune to violence committed by bad people. Australia and New Zealand are constitutional monarchies owing allegiance to the British Empire (AKA the United Kingdom or UK). We are a Constitutional Republic governed by laws bounded by individual liberties and rights. These individual rights are enumerated under a constitution carefully written by men who violently rebelled against monarchical rule (for reference, see your reasons #8 and #9). So, our worldviews collide. Fortunately, my worldview correlates with the founding framework of our free country. Yours does not.

    • As someone who has lived in Australia for nearly fifty years I feel compelled to respond to J. Selman’s letter.

      Australia did not “forcibly confiscate firearms” at all. A gun amnesty was declared in which citizens could voluntarily hand in guns and be monetarily compensated. There was no “draconian action”.

      The gun laws introduced (by a conservative government) after the terrible Tasmanian massacre have been overwhelmingly supported by the Australian people. One poll put the percentage who approved at 90 %.

      There are criminals in Australia, as in every country, who sometimes use guns on each other but rarely on anyone else. People go hunting here, but we do not have school massacres. You must be aware of the figures that clearly show the US to be an extreme outlier when it comes to gun deaths.

      Yes, Australia is a constitutional monarchy, but laws passed more than forty years ago have made the Queen a mere figurehead. The “British Empire” has not existed in any meaningful way since the 1950s at the latest. Australians are loyal to the Commonwealth of Australia.

      You are obviously entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

  5. “Then no one in government need bother about our guns safely kept in our own homes.”

    The problem with this entire article, is a presumed conclusion that everyone will follow the law, or in general follows the law. The inherent argument here, is regulate guns, so people can be safe. And it’s not reality. Good luck having Wyatt Earp roam Chicago and check in gangland’s guns. Their activities are already illegal there, and everyone just ignores it.

    Another article providing proof that being a medical doctor doesn’t extend to intellectual authority elsewhere. If I’m having problems with my HVAC, I’m not going to ask an MD about it. Likewise with gun control. What does an MD know regarding existential and philosophical beliefs, desires, and moralities revolving around firearms?

    Lastly, murder is already illegal. “intimidation” with firearms (e.g. brandishing) is already illegal. Threats with firearms is already illegal. Everything else this doctor want’s to implement, is laws against gun owners who want to own or already own weapons that he thinks you shouldn’t have, (aka – opinions). They don’t stop murder. They are targeted towards gun ownership. No thanks!

  6. This is the single most nonsensical, ignorant pile of drivel I’ve read in months. Stay in your lane, “doc.” You know absolutely nothing about firearms, constitutional rights, OR crime.

  8. —> “Well, what part of ‘well regulated’ don’t you understand?”

    “Well regulated,” when they wrote the constitution – didn’t mean gun control! LOL! It mean training, well maintained, and ready to go. I would love for the government to provide tax payer funded training in arms for all citizenry. Let’s do it!

    —> “Second, except for what the Founding Fathers signed onto as our “inalienable right to life,” we disregard for the time being our supposed legal rights…”

    Which is why murder is already illegal guys. Just because you own a gun, doesn’t mean you get to murder people. Murder is already illegal. That is the one and only gun control we can agree on. Anything else is an attack on gun owners.

    —> “A well known verse in the book of Ecclesiastes, traditionally ascribed to King Solomon, reads “To every thing there is a season…”

    Not to our rights. LOL. All our rights. Not just guns.

    —> “I’m not confiscating your guns, but you’ll have to check them when you come into town…”

    In other words, We are going to take your guns, by force, and that is NOT confiscation. LOL

    —> ““But wait,” you say, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Rubbish! It’s certainly not the only way, and as the social experiment of the last several decades has proven, it’s not a particularly good way.

    So when Wyatt Earp rode up to confiscate their guns, he didn’t have a gun? He left his guns at home? He checked his own guns? Or was he the perceived good guy with gun? And this is the point. Any time a bad person is murdering people with guns, or about to murder people, It is good guys with guns who stop them. They could be law enforcement. They could be regular joes. But they will have a gun, when they stop this bad person. Guaranteed. And this is the point of this statement that people like this doctor don’t understand. You have to meet force… with force. Okay? It’s not complicated.

  9. “Those whose jobs it is to serve and to protect us (law enforcement), could and should confront him, disarm him, and arrest him.”

    LOLOLOL! Tell that to the people of Uvalde. Law enforcement stood around while a bad guy did what he did. For over an hour.

    And Dr. Webb? The answer is no, you can’t take our guns.

  10. If you are small and weak, which means women, children, the elderly and the handicapped, the only way to stop a bad guy who doesn’t have a gun is with a gun of your own.

  11. My good doctor, your possible way forward is exactly what was rejected in the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision. Like it or not, Americans have a constitutional right to carry firearms outside of the home. It is not a “supposed legal right”, it is an actual, constitutional right.

    Second, placing your faith in law enforcement may be misguided at best. Do you not remember how law enforcement recently failed to confront a shooter? And even prompt law response times are measured in minutes, when a violent confrontation can occur in seconds.

    Third, most criminals are smart enough to conceal their weapons while in public. The vast majority of guns used in criminal activity are handguns, not rifles. Your simplistic approach for stopping criminal carry use of firearms is simply unworkable.

    Perhaps you should stick to medicine…

  12. Totalitarian regimes world wide love useful tools such as you. You believe the kind of government oppression that occasionally pops up, sending millions to their deaths would never happen here. We’re special. Immune to such tyrannical over reach. (Well…we did most recently, perhaps in your lifetime, imprison 120,000 Americans with no charges, much less trials or convictions. But best not to dwell on that too much.)

    Judging from your photo, you are well old enough to understand the death and despair brought on by communism (centralized authority and a monopoly on force), as is still extant In Russia today.

    And China.

    And Afghanistan, despite our squandering of lives, health, and fortunes.

    We see that kind of totalitarianism being attempted in Brazil, And Eritrea. And Turkmenistan. And Hungary, North Korea, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia (Remember the Khmer Rouge?), Cameroon, Congo, Cuba (more communists), Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Kazakhstan, Laos, Morocco, Montenegro, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, UAE, Uganda, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

    But we, as Americans(!) are special. We are different. It would never happen here. Not like it did in Nazi Germany. You know, the intellectual power house of Europe. Home of artists, composers, philosophers, scientists, great minds. How could such a learned, cultured country fall into such an evil place?

    Because it could happen here. And the founding fathers knew it was not going to be easy to keep the people in charge. That’s why they set aside a fail safe. If all else fails, break glass. All Americans would have the right to arms. (Well, white Americans. And we corrected that. Making sure all rights belong to all of us. The work is not done yet, but we strive ahead.)

    Within the last year, we’ve had a US President try to subvert an election that removed him from office. Tried to foment a coup to keep him in power. Had he been successful, would you still be so cavalier towards the right for all Americans to be armed?

    The problem with people who are always eager to remove someone else’s rights, is they don’t consider that someone else may be in power some day, and and their intent may not be so benign.

  13. This from a member of one of the few professions that can and does kill people with no repercussion. The number of deaths caused by negligent, incompetent or simply careless doctors is staggering.

    A doctor once told me that “by the time you become a good, experienced doctor you will have killed a dozen or so patients through mistakes caused by inexperience.”

    But they are doctors and get away with it.