Thoughts of a Gun-Toting Liberal

     In light of our recent elections and the President-elect's views on gun control, I thought I'd tackle something that has been weighing on my mind for a while, something that has me thoroughly confused: why do so many liberals hate guns? Or rather, why are liberal gun owners so dismally represented in today's politics?

     I know it sounds laughable that a vegetarian hippie socialist like myself would want to own guns. But I'm part of a growing minority of people that does not identify with the fundamentalist image of most gun owners. I have my reasons for owning guns--none of which involve killing animals or harming people--and I believe in upholding personal rights and promoting equality. I don't really see these various beliefs as incongruous with my lifestyle and ideology.

     So why must I be forced to compromise one of my very important freedoms in order to protect others that I hold equally dear? I'm speaking of course about voting for liberal Democrats because they promote my interests in many other areas like economic and social programs and on issues like abortion and the environment. By supporting Democrats, I'm faced with voting against one very important issue or voting against several. In that sense, I suppose it seems like a small price to pay, but I don't understand why people see the issue itself as so black and white, and why liberals must make the gun-ownership issue one of their major targets.

     The issue itself is a hotbed of debate that has raged for time immemorial. The objections of the anti-gun sector revolve around cutting down on crime, through the banning of certain types of guns and the strengthening of laws to decrease criminals' access to guns. Their pro-gun opposition argues that responsibility is the key, not banning, and that banning will not decrease crime. Both sides produce statistics supporting their own view, and they debate on and on about which side uses the right numbers.

     The arguments boil down to two good reasons to address gun control: preventing accidental deaths/injuries, mainly of children, and preventing criminal ownership. But child safety is the responsibility of the parent, full stop. Parents should educate their children in gun safety and responsible handling, and parents proved to be negligent of their guns and their children's well being should be prosecuted. So ultimately, the only solid argument for gun control is the issue of criminals with guns. This factor needs to be addressed above all else, through tightening gun-sale requirements and enforcing gun crime laws. This is where government and activist groups need to focus their efforts, not in taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. It's an old cliché, but it makes sense even despite the confusing statistics that anti-gun camps throw out to counter the logic: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

     So what's the point? I haven't come here to argue the merits of gun control--believe me, I'm a definite advocate for stricter regulation. But "regulation" does not mean "banning," and that's the idea that I wish liberals would champion. I am a law-abiding citizen, and I should have the right to purchase any kind of firearm I feel necessary, provided I submit to controls like background checks and gun registration. This is an issue where compromise can be reached, one simultaneously of freedom of choice and containment of violence. And once this middle ground is established, I can finally vote liberal Democrat without a bad taste in my mouth.