How best to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and others’ loved ones

In Old Forge, Inlet, and surrounding communities, we share a culture. In our culture, we walk to school in temperatures 30 degrees south of zero, we take bets on when the ice will go out in Fourth Lake, and we name the deer that live in our backyards. We love the first weekend the tourists come in late June, and we love the Tuesday after Labor Day because Main Street is once again accessible.

Our culture is rooted in our history, as well. We are a community well in sync with the outdoors, and we have been for a century and a half. Although our culture has come to include supermarkets and other advances, we still enjoy living off of the land. In typical Adirondack fashion, we trap, we fish, and we hunt.

There is nothing I appreciate more in our area than this history—although I do not hunt, my grandparents, great grandparents, and great-great grandparents fed their families venison, and it is important that this community-wide tradition of hunting continues. It is an important part of our culture.

Something that is not a part of our culture, thankfully, is gun related deaths. We are a friendly community that is careful with firearms—gun safety seems to be an innate sixth sense to most of our hunters.

Unfortunately, guns claimed the lives of two in Old Forge last summer, local indicators of a problem that includes the recent rash of gun violence across our state and country. Although neither of these deaths were homicides like the tragedies in Webster and Newtown, they are still unnecessary events in which lives were cut too short.

How can we address this?

That is, after all, the hot button issue in our nation. And we can’t act like this issue doesn’t hit home. Not only does our hunting culture have to be protected, but our lives and the lives of our loved ones and the lives of others’ loved ones must be protected as well.

This balance is needed throughout the nation. And we are not at that balance.

Our 2nd Amendment, the hotly debated stone tablet of gun-rights, was written in 1789. The authors of this vital right could not have envisioned weapons holding more than a couple bullets, let alone semiautomatic assault weapons capable of firing dozens of high powered, highly accurate rounds as fast as you can pull a trigger.

What are guns for then, anyway? Other than hunting, why do we need guns?

Certainly, the framers of the Constitution wanted to defend against government when they drafted the Bill of Rights. The Right to Bear Arms was stripped under the yoke of British Imperialism for fear of rebellion. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure our ability to stave off an out of control 18th century government.

These days, that is the number one defense of semiautomatic and automatic rifles. We must protect against an unruly government.

Unfortunately, that would be impossible to do today, even with the assault weapons mentioned above, considering our government has all kinds of weapons that are already banned from the streets of America for being just too terrifying. These are weapons of war. Tanks, rocket launchers, and unmanned drones are in our government’s control. Our guns will not stop them.

But do not fear! Considering how hyper connected our world is, and how much the great citizenry of the United States controls our government’s existence, there is a zero percent chance of our government turning on its own people.

Another claim: Taking the guns out of law-abiding citizens’ hands will make crime more prevalent. The assumption here seems to be that criminals are able to access weapons illegally (they are, after all, criminals).

Most criminals are not members of the mafia (one of the only ways I can think of that you can easily get a firearm). Of course, they could steal the gun from someone who owns it legally. If a criminal wants that badly to commit a crime, no amount of policy will stop him or her. Policy will, however, deter a good chunk of criminals.

Is my opinion ultra-liberal? Some will think so, because of the intangibles of my argument. No amount of statistical analysis can prove these assumptions.

I consider myself a moderate, and I consider this position moderate: it seems common sense to call for a permanent ban on automatic weapons, severe restrictions on assault rifles (if not a ban), and a limit on clip capacity.

These weapons were made for the military, and have no place in civilian life. None of these are appropriate for hunting, none are needed for protection, and the joy that some get from firing these at a shooting range does not outweigh the grief the nation feels after a senseless mass shooting.

I also believe that background checks should be expanded. Something that has the ability to kill with the pull of a trigger should not be as readily available as it is today. And another nearly unmeasurable assumption: these background checks will mean fewer unnecessary guns, and fewer gun related deaths.

It all makes logical sense.

How many more school shootings have to happen before we allow our gun policy to strengthen?

In an ever changing world, we must constantly reassess our opinions. This is one that needs reassessment. Hopefully, we will take a few steps “left” on this issue, towards what I believe is the center, and agree on some measure of logical gun control.

—

You can follow Colin Criss on Twitter @ADKCurrent