Let's get a couple of things straight.
I'm well known for my quick and aggressive responses to the anti-gun advocacy groups whenever gun bans are being promoted. What might not be so obvious is that I also come out very strongly in favor when the groups for reduction of gun violence promote meaningful steps that could really have an effect.
I am a benefactor member of the National Rifle Association, an organization that I enjoyed and learned from for 50-plus years. I confess this fact with great sadness because the NRA has become the profane dark shadow of itself.
The NRA now uses fear and emotional manipulation to prod people into blocking any and all real changes in the government's approach to guns and gun regulation. (Don't get me wrong; the “other side” is notorious for doing the same and often worse.)
* * *
The real question that members and supporters of the NRA have to ask is: “Do you really believe that the linchpin of the fear the NRA promotes - namely the mass confiscation of guns - could really happen here in the U.S., and does that fear really require the defeat of so many measures that could help dramatically to reduce gun violence?”
I'll go on record directly against the viewpoint of Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, and say that I just don't believe the American people are that stupid.
Yes, Hitler, Great Britain, Australia, and others pulled the wool over the eyes of their constituencies. But I think America has a different strength and very different set of roots, and I don't think the government could ever be successful without the support of the majority of the people in taking away the civilian population's guns.
I'll take another step along this path by examining the types of things the NRA claims to fear: universal background checks, a national database, a gun registry, interdepartmental sharing of information, required recording of all gun transfers, physician reporting, and on and on.
The NRA claims that to implement these things would give the government unlimited power to identify and directly confiscate guns wholesale. It might just do that, except that I go back to my original tenet - which is that I really and truly believe that the American people are smarter and more resilient than that and would not simply roll over if confronted with a genuinely unfair attempt to take away their/our Second Amendment rights.
* * *
I think it is even more important to examine the course that the country and the world is taking regardless of efforts to suppress and compartmentalize the sharing of information.
It's pretty clear to me after 45 years as one of the more successful IT professionals in the country, that the Internet and the creation of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the myriad of other companies will eventually, and sooner than we think, drive us to linked and shared data anyway.
So in the face of this, I have to ask “Why does the NRA drag its heels kicking and screaming invective in resistance to something that is not only out of their control but also out of the government's control?”
The government is crafty enough to use the changes to install systems by default to accomplish its goals, but the NRA seems blind to what seems obvious to me: to work together, compromise, and get on with helping to create and therefore have a say in the structure of systems that get created - which can really reduce gun violence.
* * *
Initially, I was entirely against President Obama and highly suspicious of his motives on gun control, considering his woeful voting record as a senator in Illinois on gun-control measures - as in, he voted for every one of them.
But recently, I have to change my view as I listen to him list the kinds of change that he believes will work.
No longer do I hear him speak of bans, but rather of creating and improving systems that can really work. He finally seems to have moved on from identifying guns as the problem and recognizes that it is really people who are the problem. All of his suggestions flow from that recognition, and I believe he is right this time.
Do the proposed changes hold the potential for nefarious use by the government? Of course they do! But what system doesn't?
It's up to the American people to watchdog that. You can't ban guns just because someone might use one wrongly. (If you do, you might as well ban cars because someone might have road rage.)
And by the same logic you can't block effective systems because the government “might” use it wrongly.
So, what are those systems?
I'll close by enumerating them, and I'll admit that I've even gone beyond what the president proposes.
• Universal background checks for all gun transfers, including gun shows, private sales, and even gifts from one person to another;
• Federal firearms licensee recording of all gun transfers;
• Improved mental-health systems aimed at recognizing people at risk and inter-agency reporting when a red flag goes up on an individual's behavior;
• Required physician and formally confidentiality-bound relationships reporting when a person is clearly identified as a likely candidate for violence;
• Genuine effective training for anyone wishing to carry a gun.
Do these proposals have problems? Do they have the potential for abuse? Of course they do! But what system - from health insurance to the criminal-justice system from state to state doesn't have risks and mismanagement?
You have to start somewhere, or nothing will change until people are emotionally and psychologically fed up - and then the NRA and its advocates will fail again as the anti-gun movement, via fear and emotional manipulation, will get all the bans it wants - and more.
* * *
My message to the NRA, my own organization, is: “You can't fight fear with fear unless you want your own actions to ultimately turn against you.”
An interesting vignette is that at the height of my career, I offered five years in a row to have this simple conversation with Wayne LaPierre, in return for which I offered a cash donation of $10,000. He never responded. Today, I'm retired and almost poor, but I'll still offer him the same information - albeit without the money, but still for free.
Finally, for those of you who will want to flame me, hate me, and believe that I've joined the “other side,” I ask you to try to calm down, think about what I've said, attempt to see that I'm actually trying to lay the groundwork for universal carry permits, the improved right to self defense, the right to have all the guns you want, and a myriad of benefits to support and enhance our ability to own, use, and enjoy guns.
I'm on your side.