Guns are not the solution to gun violence
Advertisements
January 3, 2013
I have watched the public debate unfurl in light of the horror in Newtown, Conn. It seemed obvious that guns were the problem. Guns are readily available to almost anyone.
I recall the first time I visited a Kmart in Kitty Hawk, NC, and saw displays of rifles and shotguns and all kinds of firearms. Call it naivete, but I had no idea that guns were so easy to purchase by basically anyone.
In light of this latest horror to befall us as a result of gun violence, the National Rifle Association finally offered its condolences and analysis on how to proceed.
And what is the NRA’s solution? No limitations on guns; no cutback on the sale of guns; no limitations on purchasing.
The NRA’s solution is more guns.
Let me repeat that: The NRA’s solution is more guns.
How is it possible that the American society has so distorted the understanding and intention of the Second Amendment for the NRA to suggest that the answer to gun violence is, to paraphrase the CEO of the NRA, that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?
Who exactly are the “good guys” (he’s referring not only to police but armed civilians) and who will identify them? You can well imagine that some of the “good” guys will turn out to be less good than they appear, and some of the “bad” guys will be misidentified. That means more people will be shot and probably killed because of guns.
The NRA’s solution is to place armed guards in every school. Without commenting on the efficacy, morality, or pedagogical soundness of such an approach, I’ll only ask just who will pay for the extra security cost of such a solution? Training and new security measures won’t come without an enormous price tag.
That price also includes societal costs. Imagine your five-year-old going through a metal detector when he or she enters a school building. Or airport-style searches as toddlers enter school for their first day.
I do not believe that having armed guards in each school is a solution. In some of the tragic shootings that have occurred, there were armed guards and it resulted in more deaths.
The solution to me seemed obvious. It is fewer guns or it is no guns.
The entire debate over the Second Amendment seems fallacious. The founders certainly did not intend that everyone be armed for every situation. Even assuming, arguendo, there were security needs about prowlers and other dangers, registered handguns obtained after testing for physical and mental acuity, as well as soundness, might be appropriate. However, we have seen the frequent utilization of assault weapons and automatic weapons that could never, under any circumstance, be appropriate for hunting. The only “practical” purpose of such weapons is their ability to kill people.
The shooter in Connecticut, unfortunately, typifies many individuals with a history of mental illness who have easy access to weapons. Since it is impossible to know the limitations of every person and their mental soundness, it would seem that the obvious limitation should be on their access to obtain weapons.
Curiously, the NRA likes to argue that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. What an obvious obfuscation of facts and simplification of a problem. Yes, people use weapons. However, the fundamental question is how did they obtain those weapons and why do so many people have them and feel they need them?
The killings in Newtown must serve as a call for dialogue on gun rights and comprehensive reform of our gun laws. Responsible debate can be constructive if real change is the result.
The issues have been debated for a very long time. People are deeply divided on this subject. But it is not really a political debate. Unfortunately, so many issues become struggles because of fundamentalist readers of the Constitution who believe in a literal reading of a document written in the 18th century, and make no distinction between a blunderbuss musket and a semi-automatic rifle that can easily be rendered automatic. The debate over security in one’s home and domain needs to be rationalized. More guns cannot be a practical solution.
Comments
Will I am
January 03, 2013
“Since it is impossible to know the limitations of every person and their mental soundness, it would seem that the obvious limitation should be on their access to obtain weapons.” This is the rhetoric of facism. The author of this article is a statist parasite who seeks to destroy this country by turning it into a prison. He fancies himself perhaps a goaler? In any event, he is an evil and wicked man who would gladly stuff children into his personal molech that his will be done. All such men are now promulgating their plans in the open.
dollylama
January 03, 2013
Guns make it too easy to kill. Period. Please sign this petition because we need to convince Senator Ayotte to vote for any upcoming legislation to ban assault weapons, which she currently opposes. Tell everyone you know to sign. It doesn’t matter where you live, her vote affects us all. Thank you.
http://www.change.org/petitions/kelly-ayotte-make-assault-weapons-illegal?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created
jack burton
January 04, 2013
I would believe jacobs more easily if he only promised to ask the police to leave their guns in the stationhouse as he is on the phone to 911 at 3 in the morning because he heard his downstairs window be broken.
In the meantime, for a much more mature look at the quesiton, “Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?” read http://jack-burton.hubpages.com/hub/damage-society-guns
Vince A
January 04, 2013
Roger, You seem to have missed to root of the problem, it’s not the guns but the maddness of the men (boys) in these shootings. Each and every one of theses mass shootings involve people that have been treated (and I use that term losely) by psychiatrist who prescibed psychotic drugs to them. Why is that so hard to see? I am amazed at the proliferation that some how its the second admendments fault the we have all these shootings and none about how maybe, just maybe, it’s the drugs that each and every shooter has been taking. We should be looking into how these drugs are affectting the people who are taking them. What will it take for all anti-gun advocates to wake up and realize you picking on the wrong target. Look to the drug pushers and not the gun dealers for your answer. You may be shocked at what you see.
Sam Adams
January 04, 2013
How is it that so many laywers know zip about the founders and the Constitution.
The right to keep and bear arms is ABSOLUTE (shall not be infringed) it is a right of the PEOPLE; the militia ARE the people [un-organized militia c.f. Title 10 USC Ch. 13 Sec 311 (b)(2) ] and to regulate meant to make regular, to adjust to a standard. In the context of the sentence, it meant well-trained. This is verifiable by anyone who takes the time.
I own arms first to defend against tyranny and only secondarily for self defense. I don’t hunt.
SamAdams1776
Molon Labe
Si vis pacem parabellum