Today, arguably one of the most beloved actors of the 21st Century appeared before the media, at The Whitehouse, to address the nation about the murder of 21 innocents, including 19 children in his hometown of Uvalde, TX. McConaughey’s heartfelt plea was both touching and poignant. This letter is not intended to throw stones, or attack one side or the other. This letter is meant only to provoke thought, and clarify issues. A link to his speech is HERE.

Let me open with two clear statements.  First, I am unabashed in supporting the Constitution, all of the Constitution, and in context the 2^nd Amendment – especially the ideal that it “…shall not be infringed.” Second, I can only imagine the pain and anguish of the family of those killed in any mass shooting, but the murder of children is perhaps the most heinous of all crimes. 

These statements may seem to be diametrically opposed.  Indeed, the very nature of firearms is admittedly that they are designed to destroy.  I will not argue that.  Nor will I argue the fact that the 2nd Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and intended to curtail the press of tyranny upon We the People.  You mentioned that We the People are closer in thought and feeling on these issues than the media and politicians would have us believe.  I believe that if the majority of We the People were to take as you called it, a “sober” look at the situation, we would see that neither the 2nd Amendment, nor the ubiquitous AR15 is the problem, the cause, or the ultimate solution.  I will not argue this further, I have written articles about the 2A HERE and HERE. Instead…

I would like to address the ideas that you purported could be a partial solution to your statement given at the Whitehouse.  Let us first examine the issues that you brought up with mental health care.  Up front – I agree wholeheartedly.  The mental health of the United States has been in a downward spiral since the inception of psychotropic medications which led to the defunding of in-patient mental health care (deinstitutionalization) as Medicaid was enacted in 1965 by the Johnson Administration.  We have seen a sharp increase in the number of mass shootings since 1982 – and this can be correlated with the further defunding of institutionalization under the Reagan Administration. (all references are available in my book HERE)

The fact is that psychiatry has been forced to treat patients almost exclusively with psychotropics, and the number of severely mentally ill people in the United States has risen exponentially since 1965.  Almost none of these people are in institutions with proper care.  Instead, we rely on the justice system that has created a revolving door in the prisons where even the most disturbed offenders of capital crimes (rape, sexual assault, even murder) find themselves on the street in just a few years.  So yes, we need to invest in re-institutionalizing the severely mentally ill.  Do we have the guts to do that?

You also mentioned that expanded background checks and waiting periods should be instituted to help dissuade these shooters from committing the heinous barbarism that they have wrought on our communities.  I wonder if you have ever heard of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.  In fact, this law enacted requires background checks for all firearms purchases from licensed gun dealers.  I wonder if you knew that almost every one of the mass shooters (not including the nearly daily shootings in large cities where the vast majority of mass shootings happen in the black community and are perpetrated with illegally purchased firearms) in recent years, including the villain that attacked the children in your hometown, passed such a background check? Are you aware that such a provision already exists, and along with “red-flag” laws have shown little-to-no effect on the issue?  Indeed, even when handed a legitimate case of a person planning to commit a mass shooting the FBI and local authorities often fail to act.  Are you aware that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has prosecuted less than .09% of the persons that have failed a background check?  I suppose that these checks could work – but simply put, they do not, have not, and are only effective if actually enforced, which they largely are not.

You went on to support a rise in the age of ownership/purchase of an AR15 (and I assume that you also would include all other “assault weapons”) to 21 years old.  I could also get behind this – if it were evenly applied to all our social and political responsibilities and rights.  It is commonly accepted that the human brain is not fully developed and mature until age 25.  Indeed, it is often the age at which one’s car insurance finally starts to go down in premiums, the age when you can rent a car from many major vendors without additional fees, and when you can rent a hotel room in many cases.  So why should we not delay gun ownership or purchasing until age 25?

There is one simple answer that forces a logical conundrum.  One can legally vote at age 18, although many that want to ban guns entirely wish to lower this to 16.  Further, one can join the military at age 18 (17 with parental permission) and actually be issued a real fully-automatic assault rifle – and be trained to kill the enemies of the state with it.  Meanwhile, some push for gender reassignment, hormone therapy, and identity transition at age 7 or earlier.  We allow children to drive at age 15 or 16 – often with tragic results.  Indeed, generally speaking, more people are killed each year in car accidents than in all firearms deaths (including accidents, murders, and suicides).  Finally, the US Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984 that raised the age to 21 – well below when the human brain is fully developed and matured. 

I suggest that if we are to start infringing on something that is explicitly denied to the government as infringeable – that we make it across the board.  Let us follow The Science.  Let us set the drinking, driving, military, voting, transition, marriage, and gun ownership/purchase age – the universal age of majority (yes, including consensual sex, and abortions) at 25.  Doesn’t that fit both the logic and The Science?  Could we agree that anyone under 25 years old should not enter into contracts, have a credit card, or own property?  What is good for one, is good for all, no?