Dear Editor
I just finished reading Brian Zinchuk`s article, "The gun kooks were right" (Regional Optimist, April 17) and I have to say that I thought it was brilliant. I found it to have just the right balance between a sarcastic "I told you so, dummy!" and a serious "can we now address what the problem is, now that we know what the problem is not?" to take a serious crack at the idea of imposing gun control for the purposes of controlling violence. Although, I'm not sure I entirely agree with his conclusion that this happens because some people are just bad, but that's another issue.
Until a few years ago I had always considered myself "pro gun-control" and I always approached it from the perspective that there should be logical, legal limits as to what civilians should be allowed to own and for what purposes. And, I had a very specific line in the sand for that. Expressing that logic and line in the sand during my undergrad years would immediately seem to rally the anti-gunners around me and they would also always try to tack on how it would also serve to reduce violence. This was usually where they would turn on me.
I'm ex-military and I've worked in some capacity with just about every weapon system a grunt can use on a battlefield and I know for a fact the weapon you carry in your hands is nowhere near as important as the head you carry on your shoulders. There is zero credibility to the claim that guns make it easier to kill, under any circumstances. Expressing this reality would always earn me an emotional dressing down (to put in mildly) as "blind," "brainwashed," "disrespectful to victims of conjugal violence," "opposed to women's rights," etc. etc. and God help me if I ever tried to play devil's advocate. With that experience in mind, I find it hard to fathom that anyone could mistake this article for "anti-gun." Now, I can safely say that I am the worst kind of "pro-gunner" out there to an "anti-gunner." I am a convert.
The thing that I like most about this article is that it at least appears to take that extra step that most "pro-gun" authors don't take. They all seem to end with, "the problem is not us, so banning guns didn't/doesn't/won't work." As true and understandable as this statement is, it still doesn't address the problems. Mr. Zinchuk's article seems to say, "Banning guns doesn't work and banning knives is impossible" and then goes on to ask "so how do we deal with this?"
I've been trying to answer that for people as it relates to the more common issues of violence against women, which I know back to front, but no one seems to want to hear it. Concealed carry permits aren't going to fix the problem any more than banning, or even restricting guns will because neither of them address the problems.
Everyone, "anti-gunners" and "gun kooks" alike, seems to want the one, out-there, not-us, thing-we-can-blame, quick-fix solution for everything. This is an "our" problem that will require an "our" solution, so "we" need to start taking a hard look at what reality is instead of constantly defending the comfortable fantasy "we" want reality to be.
Seeing that directional shift in this article is a welcome change in my mind and I look forward to reading more of Mr. Zinchuk's work.
Joe Taylor
Montreal, Que.
