This is Not About Gun Control

Print Share on LinkedIn Comments More
Public domain image.

Public domain image.

This essay is not about gun control. My nephew was not some cute five-year-old child killed in some perfect part of town where this type of thing “isn’t supposed to happen,” as the media likes to report. This happened to a 34-year-old Mexican-American man on the Southside of San Antonio, a part of town where this type of thing has been happening since as far back as I can remember.

I won’t profess that my nephew was a saint. He had his scrapes with the law. But he did not deserve to die like this. In the end my nephew was gunned down trying to protect a girl from her 19-year-old boyfriend with gun— a 19-year-old boy who I hope will be sentenced to do some serious adult time.

My nephew may not be the ideal poster child for the tragedy of gun violence in America, but he is the perfect approximation of what it looks like. The reality is that 86 people a day are killed by guns. The vast majority are not the victims of mass shootings that ever so briefly hold our collective attention, but individuals, many from parts of town or neighborhoods that only register with the shrugs of our collective indifference.

As one commentator on the article about my nephew’s murder noted, “one pendejo is in jail and the other pendejo is dead.” Perhaps the commentator is on to something. Perhaps the solution is that simple: reduce the fatal consequences suffered by others to a snarky putdown to support the delusion that you are immune to the equalizing mortality of the barrel of a gun.

But this is not about gun control. I have plenty of friends with a firearms fetish and I fully respect their Second Amendment right to prepare for the collapse of Western civilization. Besides, as we’ve all learned, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. By that logic the only way we will ever be truly safe is if every single one of us is armed. We all know that it does no good to throw out a bunch off statistics about gun violence, because cars, planes, knives and cricket bats kill people, too. However, I do know for a fact that if that one 19-year-old boy wasn’t carrying a gun he would’ve had a much harder time killing my nephew.

But this is not about gun control, because guns are what make us the greatest country in the world. We may be 20 times more likely to die due to gun violence than people in other “developed” countries, but who wants to live in a so-called developed country where you can’t open carry into a Wal-Mart or Chili’s? As we all learned in middle school, America was founded and the West was won with the barrel of a gun. Guns make us strong, powerful and capable. Guns are as American as apple pie, more so since pies didn’t defeat the Germans in World War II.

But, really, this is not about gun control, because in a country where there are enough guns for every man, woman and child – how can a criminal not have access to a gun? Let’s face it: In a country awash with 300 million guns, criminals will always have access to guns (they can just break into your house and steal them). Besides, let’s be fair: Most of the mass shooters didn’t have a previous criminal history. They weren’t criminals until they went out and killed someone. Since guns are sacrosanct and you can’t read people’s minds, there is literally nothing that can be done.

So rest easy my fellow Americans. I am not advocating gun control because if the mass murder of women and children over the last few years couldn’t change anything – one more dead Mexican-American man on the Southside sure as hell won’t.

*Featured/top image: Public domain image. 

Related Stories:

Lies in the Sand: A Look Behind The Alamo Gun Rally

Peaceful, Yet Startling “Come and Take It” Rally Brings 400 People With Guns to Alamo Plaza

Shutdown and Shut Out in The ‘New American Center’

A San Antonian Reflects on Hate Crimes against Sikhs

In a Sometimes Rancorous City, a Civil Conversation Celebrating the U.S. Constitution

15 thoughts on “This is Not About Gun Control

  1. Wow. Just wow. Sorry your nephew died. It is never easy to lose a loved one. But it this condescending tone really the way the Rivard Report is going to be written in from now on?

    • My exact thought. If snarky comments aren’t to be allowed (and they shouldn’t be~keep it clean and meaningful) neither does a snarky commentary serve the readers well.

      The author really had a point to make, and it might have served as a letter to the editor, but it adds no value in an informative news publication, it serves only to skew (or skewer).

  2. Then there is that technicality called the Bill of Rights which liberals have had under assault on several fronts. Anti-free speech, anti religion, anti right to bear arms and the right to a jury trial: Citizens United, Obama Care, objections to the T.M. verdict. They once fought and died for these rights: Kent State, Angela Davis, Mohammad Ali, Daniel Ellsberg. This younger generation of democrats is socialized. Are you going to block this comment as in the past: anti free speech.

  3. Great article! Great points! When safety is really important, you’ll find guns are banned except for law enforcement: court houses, airports, and cruise ships.

  4. I dont really understand the point of this article? Very sorry about your nephew regardless of his past he died a hero to that young girl and in the eyes of others. Mine anyway. But im disappointed. You could have said something really powerful instead this is what you produced?

  5. Gun control. There can never be such a thing.
    Not while there so much money being profit from their manufacturer.

    The citizenry needs them to keep the criminals at bay. The criminals need them to be criminals.

    Weapons it’s a money generating apparatus that benefits many.

    For that shot that ended a life guickly sets into motion the transfer of funds.

    As in emergency services, police, investigation, forensics, news reporting, fuel used, mortuary, burial, and flowers.
    You get the picture.

  6. Beautiful, sad, and somehow still made me want to smile. Great piece! May your nephew rest in peace.

  7. “one pendejo is in jail and the other pendejo is dead”

    Abhorrent racism aside, isn’t this article just as cynical as this statement? I’m sorry about your nephew. But just because there isn’t an obvious solution, doesn’t mean there isn’t a solution. Or even a partial solution.

    Cynicism is ultimately justification for inaction.

  8. To style critics: This is one man’s experience and it is told with emotion and a distinct point of view. This is a blog, not The Old Grey Lady.

  9. Violence is a part of being Human. If you cannot accept violence then live life in a cave. Sequester yourself in a vacuum never to be heard of. I have lost friends and family to other individuals. It is a part of life. Peace is unattainable and will be for some time. “Gun control” is a facade for a different kind of violence.

    A gun is a tool like every other tool. If you throw a gun to the side there are other tools. People will find a way. Murder is still common where there are no guns.

    Partisan rhetoric like this only divides those who should seek equilibrium. “Gun Control” is regulation, regulation is force, most people set in their ways in whatever political party would argue otherwise because self interest gets in the way. They believe what they believe and that is all.

    Keep up the good work! Divisive issues like this will keep the status quo alive and well.

  10. Inaction would have been writing nothing at all.

    Partisan rhetoric would have demonized or belittled individuals who believe their second amendment right extends to carrying loaded firearms with them at all times without restrictions or limitations.

    Talking/writing about an issue or topic with varying degrees of disagreement does not make the discussion divisive in and of itself. And a civilized discussion is an inherent part of any solution.

    Obviously this article is written from the very personal point of view of someone who has not only experienced tragic loss, but also from someone who has at least some knowledge of facts pertinent to the issue of firearms in America. Mr. Dominguez’s essay shares his own personal frustrations with the circumstances surrounding his nephew’s meaningless death, including the facts that a 19 year-old had a gun that he used to threaten and ultimately kill someone, that this type of thing is far from irregular in many parts of this country, and that we as a society are so collectively indifferent about this tragedy. Mr. Dominguez is not just referring to his own nephew’s death, but includes the tragedy of our indifference or our rabid definitions and defenses of our own points of view on the issues at bay.

    Mr. Dominguez is not trying to preach to the choir or convert anyone. At most, Mr. Dominguez can be accused of utilizing sarcasm to express his own personal disenfranchisement with his nephew’s senseless death at the hands of a young man with a gun in America.

    • This article would be great if it were neutral. It’s not neutral in any sense. This is preaching to one side of the political spectrum. This article is clearly taking a side which is in my opinion, divisive.

      People from the left and right of the ideological spectrum view articles here. When you have an argument from one side of that spectrum with an issue like gun control you can guess what is going to happen.

      It isn’t enough that the title is divisive simply because gun control is a divisive issue. The next part is an appeal to emotion. One sad part about this essay is the use of an appeal to emotion. That hurts the articles credibility because everyone has lost someone and opening with that makes the whole argument dubious.

      I say: Keep it about improving San Antonio. That’s what we’re here for. You don’t improve San Antonio using political ammunition like “gun control” or “lives lost”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *