A conversation about weapons

Opinion: Columns

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Jim Whalen

A recent conversation I had with my nephew-in-law stimulated me to order my thinking about gun-control laws and engendered some new thoughts. My nephew-in-law (NIL) is quite liberal in all respects except on issues regarding gun control. He grew up with guns in his household and now owns his own guns, with which he responsibly enjoys such recreational activities as hunting and target practice. Here is the gist of the conversation:

JW: I accept that gun ownership provides leisure-time enjoyment for millions and will always be a part of the American culture. The salient questions are what type of weapons should be legal and what degree of regulation for the safe use of guns is necessary.

Regarding the rules, closing the gun-show loophole is obvious. Criminal background checks make sense. Cooling-down periods are necessary to prevent some of the shootings that are born of passion. All guns must be registered, and transfers of weapons (including theft) must be documented. Safe storage of guns should be mandatory, and gun owners whose weapons are used illegally should be held accountable, perhaps with fines or even legal consequences (for instance, misdemeanors).

Regarding the type of guns that should be allowed …

NIL: First, let me say I agree with everything you have said up to now, but would add licensing for all gun owners that would involve the teaching of safe use and storage of guns. I also think every gun owner should undergo some type of psychological vetting before getting a gun license.

JW: This "psychological vetting" is a tall order. I just don't think we have good enough screening tools (whether written or personal interviews) to effectively determine who can and who cannot own a gun responsibly. In addition to the staggering cost such a policy would necessitate, such screening would inevitably carry many "false positives" and "false negatives." That is, people who will never carry any risk for committing violence with a gun could be labeled as ineligible for gun ownership (false positive), and "closet" psychotics may breeze through psychological screening (false negatives). Moreover, there are thorny policy questions. Should a person who took some doctor-prescribed anti-depressants in his/her 20s for a temporary bout of depression be labeled as having a mental illness and forever be ineligible for gun ownership? What about people on drugs for anxiety? It's easy to say paranoid schizophrenics should be denied guns, but there are many more gray areas in mental disorders than the obvious slam dunks. And how would the information regarding mental illness that never makes it to the legal system be accessed? Doctors are bound by patient confidentiality, and medical records would therefore not
be available.

NIL: OK, I see your point on psychological testing. The next thing I am going to say will surprise you, though: I believe people have the constitutional right to buy and own any type of weapon without limits.

JW: How about bazookas?

NIL: Yes

JW: Rocket-propelled grenades?

NIL: Yes.

JW: Cannons?

NIL: Yes.

JW: H-bombs?

Here I finally made him stumble. I jumped on the opportunity to say that we had now established the principle that government can limit the use of some weapons — now we just needed to debate where the line should be drawn. I said that semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines exceeded my limits. I acknowledged that these types of weapons constituted a small percentage of the problem of gun homicides, but, in the words of President Obama, saving even one life with a semi-automatic weapons bans would be worthwhile. And common sense laws described above would address the Newtown level of mayhem that occurs daily with handguns in our big cities.

NIL: One reason I feel that responsible citizens should be allowed to own sophisticated weaponry is that guns are necessary to protect ourselves from the government.

Our conversation ended and I was troubled by NIL's last point. It sounded like the ravings of a paranoid, knuckle-dragging member of the American Nazi Party. Because I respect NIL so much, though, I thought about this for a couple of days. Then I mentally took myself out of our mostly orderly society and wondered whether I might agree with NIL if I were a Syrian. Maybe citizen-owned guns are an important last resort when the Brown shirts are pounding on your door.

At any rate, Americans have a strong weapon against the government — the ballot box. It is scandalously underutilized, but that is the subject for another conversation.

Reader Comments

6 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

OP Resident # 545 from Oak Park  

Posted: May 8th, 2013 11:46 AM

Nothing wrong with spirited, engaging conversation among relatives & neighbors. Emotion has it's place, but so do facts (real ones) & logic. Please see that bastion of right wing conspiracy, The Washington Post, for good info as to why the anti-gun crusaders are so off base....http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/07/doj-gun-violence-down-semi-automatics-a-minor-issue/

Danny from Oak Park  

Posted: May 8th, 2013 6:48 AM

This is why we are in such danger of the 2nd amendment being trampled. Knuckleheads like these two guys have NO grasp on what the issues actually are. Registration... sheesh. And the nuclear bomb argument is just so, so incredibly stupid. My head hurts from this atrocious article.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: May 8th, 2013 1:34 AM

JW; Sorry, your nephew is off base. Now you should talk to Charles Silvernail Smith, the young American Indian man who was forced to run for his life through the streets of OP being chased by a white mob. He used is handgun to kill his attacker. I have the police file if you would like to read it.

John from outside Oak Park  

Posted: May 8th, 2013 12:09 AM

Ridiculous. Specious arguments masquerading as intellectual debate. Nuclear weapons, RPGs, bazookas, and cannons are not defensive weapons. In the 18th century everyone had flintlock muskets. In the 19th it was centerfire Colts and lever action rifles. The 20th century continued the evolution, including the magazine-fed rifles, carbines, and pistols that law enforcement uses to defend themselves and others from criminals. Those are civilian weapons and should be legal.

joe from South Oak Park  

Posted: May 7th, 2013 11:11 PM

also "regarding the issues". In order to get a FOID card the card holder had to go through a background check. No gun-show or private sale loophole in Illinois. Mandatory gun registration and storage is unconstitutional thank you Heller. Transfers of weapons are currently documented and held for 10 years in Illinois. Legal gun owners held accountable for weapons used in crime. CRAZY. If someone steals my car and goes and runs a pedestrian over how would I be accountable? i could go on...

joe from South Oak Park  

Posted: May 7th, 2013 10:46 PM

"in the words of President Obama, saving even one life with a semi-automatic weapons bans would be worthwhile." Should we apply the same standard to distracted driving? Of course not because folks from both parties drive cars and talk on cell phones. Gun control is nothing more than a wedge issue to further radicalize folks on both sides of the aisle. If Obama was at all serious about actually preventing crime he would make sure that the laws currently on the books were enforced.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2017

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2017 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad