We all want to decrease and eliminate gun violence. There is simply a difference of opinion of how to accomplish that goal. John Micek’s article in the Penn Capital Star, however, does not point to any specific legislative or cultural solutions, but instead calls for a yet undefined “common sense” gun control that seems to suggest firearms somehow be made “more illegaler” for criminals who would do harm to others.

The age of gun control (limiting gun ownership) through legislation is over. Advances in technology ended it years ago. Anyone wishing to have a firearm can produce one in their house with ease. It is no longer possible to remove access to guns from people who wish to do harm. Gun control measures, then, serve only to limit and disarm those who need their right to self defense intact. It is no longer worth it to discuss where the line is drawn on the Second Amendment, technology will set that line. The conversation needs to start with that fact in mind.

When I met my wife, we were young. She was 19 and legally prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon. She was trained to shoot safely from the age of five. She wasn’t allowed to defend her own life according to the state, but as an EMT she was dispatched to crime scenes, domestic abuse scenes, and violent neighborhoods to help save other peoples lives. Sometimes the ambulance arrives before the police. Too bad. She was disarmed and left vulnerable by the law.

For such an admirable defendant of LGBTQ rights (as am I) it is disappointing that Misek lauds red flag laws as common sense in his article. That same law would have disarmed the entire LGBTQ population just years ago. The entire LGBTQ community has a constitutional and human right to protect themselves that would have been eliminated under the misnomer of “common sense” under these red flag laws. Such laws put power in the hands of few at the expense of the masses, and who bears the burden of persecution will change based on who is in charge. When the see-saw tips toward another political party, do you want them to have the power to systematically remove your rights?

Micek is right to point out that active shooter drills are handled poorly, but he addresses the issue too far down the path. Why are schools a target at all? The article encourages everyone to “‘get on the same page’ to find a solution,” but disarming families, the LGBTQ community, and minorities is unlikely to gain traction from even the left.

Where is the care for those who have been disenfranchised? Where is the care for those for whom there is no adequate law enforcement response? Where is the respect for people to make their own decisions? They deserve the right to self defense as well. That self defense can only come from a well trained firearm user who is properly armed, as we all should be.

If a mad man can murder 12 people in a government building 500 feet from two police stations, if the armed school guard refuses to protect students on his watch, if the gun free zone continues to be the soft target, the hole in my heart is for those disarmed and left defenseless by these poor policy decisions.

Follow me here.

pro liberty. Director of Comms and Development at a law firm. Adjunct Professor at a university. all opinions are my own. www.ConnerDrigotas.com

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store