Violence and Firearms

A statistic led me to this point.  In reporting on the NRA's response to the Newtown tragedy, the networks reported that the organization has 4 million members.  I was struck by the small number and how disproportionate was their influence.

In a nation of 300 million people, how does 1.3% of that population get to control the debate on the regulation of firearms manufacture, sales and ownership?

Some background on my perspective: I have owned several firearms--as many as three shotguns, two rifles, two handguns and an air rifle at one time.  I enjoy hunting, target shooting and taking care of the weapons.  I do not own or possess any firearms currently.  In the interests of full disclosure, I should also say that I have been a member of the NRA.

Now that those cards are on the table, my opinion of the NRA is that it is an extremist organization.  When I was a member, I was sent messages and asked to pass them along to my elected representatives and/or network media figures.  The language in these messages was, to my mind, extreme and I could not, in good conscience, do as requested by Wayne Lapierre or Charlton Heston.

So how does the NRA wield so much influence?  It's mainly because their voice is the well-orchestrated one.  A voice for something always drowns out the voice against.  They have consistently made the issue about the Constitution and for a right cited in the Second Amendment.  The opposition, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is portrayed as being against the "right" cited in the Second Amendment.

This much is obvious, right?  It's also obvious that the voice that is heard is easily interpreted as the majority.  The NRA is very good at whipping up a frenzy of fearful indignation amongst the membership.  They can generate 4 million (I don't imagine there were too many others like me) emails, letters and phone calls, frequently to multiple targets.  The Brady Campaign can't do this nearly as well.

As we saw in Mr. Lapierre's most recent statements, it is easy to sow seeds of confusion and generate several tangential debates while all the while adamantly holding the flag of the Second Amendment high and calling on loyal Americans to rally to its defense.

In fact, there is no justification for high-capacity magazines and high rate-of-fire except as a thrill for certain kinds of enthusiasts.  (There must be another term for an enthusiastic extremist--or maybe enthusiastic is redundant.)  You can get quite a thrill from cocaine or meth, too, but those thrills are illegal.  I have been in the woods during deer season and heard a single weapon discharge 10,15,or more rounds in the space of a few seconds.  It made me profoundly uneasy as I sat there with my single-shot rifle.  Thrills for a few are not sufficient justification for the level of danger presented.

The Second Amendment could be satisfied with a muzzle loading black powder weapon.  Let's shrug off the "right to keep and bear arms" as the central issue and stay focused on issues more central to the public welfare.