Almost everyone is talking about gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. Ok, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. In that case, we’ve established that people cannot be trusted to use weapons properly and take away from them what could, in an instant, cause mass carnage, right? Not quite.
The Second Amendment to the US constitution says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Founding Fathers may or may not have dreamed of AK-47s when they gave us the right to bear arms, but that’s not the point here. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will carry guns, and what do we use to protect ourselves from a totalitarian state (which, incidentally, was the main intent of the second amendment)? Looks like the gun nuts only read “right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” while overlooking the “well regulated” aspect, and the anti-gun lobby completely looks past the “security of a free State” bit. How to address this gap in a more sane manner?
Michael Moore points out in Bowling for Columbine that our neighbors to the north possess more guns per capita than Americans with only a fraction of gun-related deaths. So, it really comes down to a question of our discipline and character. What makes us so quick to retaliate with firearms while the Canadians don’t?
We glamorize killing in our media, TV shows and military might while they don’t, for one. Additionally, as I said yesterday at First Draft, mental illness gets very short shrift across the world and here in America, for shame. Students (and workers in high-stress situations) are awarded less and less in terms of mental health benefits, and this is a problem. These are some things to think about that can help push the dialogue beyond Yay Guns Vs. No Guns.
As for policy, I’m all for Chris Rock’s Knives For Guns Exchange. “Remember, kids, it ain’t punk to fire from across the room. It takes a man to get close enough to STAB!” Also from Mr. Rock, “I think every bullet should cost 5000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn’t have any innocent bystanders.” No jokes – why do we make violence a cakewalk?
Actually, a lower percentage of Canadian households have guns than in the US. I’m not sure if there are more guns per household (making the per capita number higher), but I think per-household might actually be a better indicator (collectors and such could throw the per capita numbers off), and in no case do I trust Moore to get details right. (Though his often-overlooked point in that film – that violence doesn’t come from weapons, but from other social factors – is a good one.)
“Gun control” and “outlawing guns” are not the same thing. Switzerland, for example, has a pretty high rate of gun ownership by European standards, and is held up as an example to show that guns don’t inevitably lead to more gun deaths – but in fact Switzerland does have extensive gun control laws.
I don’t believe that gun control laws are some kind of cure for gun violence, either, but I do think it’s reasonable to ask whether certain measures make sense. I don’t think Second Amendment forbids any type of gun regulation, anymore than the First Amendment forbids laws against libel, threatening people’s lives, or the classic “fire in a crowded theater” example.
It’s reasonable for us, as a country, to have the discussion without any suggestion of regulation being interpreted as the most extreme possible measure, a ban. That’s tough to do with entrenched lobbies (on both sides of the issue).
We glamorize killing in our media, TV shows and military might while they don’t, for one.
That’s a very important point to make, especially considering Cam’ron’s upcoming discussion on 60 Minutes about how he wouldn’t call the police for anything because it’s not part of his “culture”.
These are some things to think about that can help push the dialogue beyond Yay Guns Vs. No Guns.
I think you raise some good points, and I’ve attempted to break it down somewhat. Crime prevention basically falls into two levels: strategic and tactical.
At the strategic level, it’s about mental health services, increased educational/employment opportunities, effective health care, etc. It’s about programs which attack the causes of criminal behavior.
At the tactical level, it’s about firearms and weapons and defensive tactics. It’s about things and acts which attack the imminent acts of a criminal.
By looking at both, we get a better picture of how to stop criminal activity both before it comes to fruition and as it’s ongoing.
Since the storm, I’ve been glad I own a gun. Actually, I own an assault rifle, the most timely purchase ever, bought from an old roomate a month pre-K when he fell on hard times and needed money.
I was never pleased with having a gun in the house, but the storm changed all of that. It came in handy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/boxchain/44736308/ (not me)
The problem with the second amendment is, of course, we aren’t allowed to bear arms of sufficient strength to defend us from governments. And anyone who had their weapons taken in the immediate Katrina aftermath knows how hard it is to depend on the constitution during a crisis.
While it’s true that guns are easy to get, and even if they were to be prohibited, only the criminals would be able to get them, I wonder if they could put restrictions on ammo. Like the guy who shot his wife and kids this week, he stormed to Wal Mart in a rage and bought the ammo. Maybe that’s where they might have better success in reducing gun killings. After all, ammo goes bad after a while.
I’m not advocating, I’m just musing. And yes, a lot of the problem lies in glorifying guns.