Michael Carley asks if there’s ever going to be a good time to talk about gun control, because there seem to be more distractions and excuses than conversations.
We’ve been told several times in the past couple of years that “it’s not the right time” to talk about gun control.
We couldn’t talk about it when a politician and several others were shot in Arizona. It wasn’t yet time when a Colorado gunman shot numerous moviegoers. It wasn’t quite the time when an NFL player shot his girlfriend, then himself shortly afterward in Kansas City. When, in December 2012, a Connecticut man shot 20 children and six adults at an elementary school, it still wasn’t yet time to talk about guns, nor in the 140 plus school shooting since then, including the recent one.
We’re told that to bring gun control up at these times is crass, even opportunistic.
By some calculations, we’re now having just about one mass shooting per day in the US, so if we’re not going to talk in the immediate aftermath of one, we never will.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Second Amendment to the constitution. It had been understood for most of our history to be a right that belonged to states. Only in 2008, in a narrow, activist decision by the Roberts court, was it applied to individuals.
But let’s acknowledge that because of the 2008 decision, it’s now the law of the land that individuals have the right to own firearms. That decision, District of Columbia v Heller, and a subsequent one (McDonald v Chicago) that applied the rule to states, were about laws that imposed complete bans on handguns.
The Court has not yet stated that any American has the right to possess any firearm she or he chooses for any purpose. Presumably, even if we agree that individuals have the right to own guns, there is some room for debate over the details–whenever it’s time for that debate.
When it is time, perhaps someone can explain a few things to me. For example, why does anyone need a military-style automatic or semi-automatic assault rifle for personal protection or hunting? Are you such a bad shot that you need a weapon that fires thirty rounds per second? Are deer that fast?
How realistic is it really that you’ll need ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? How often are those likely to be needed for personal protection as opposed to mass violence?
Can someone please tell me why we can’t have a requirement that every firearm be registered and that anyone who wants to own a gun be required to undergo safety training?
Maybe someone can explain to me the need for the “gun show loophole” that allows 40 percent of the firearm sales in this country to take place without any background check. What is wrong with requiring a background check for each and every gun purchase? You need a license to drive a car, but not to buy a product, the purpose for which is to kill or maim?
While the public isn’t that divided, a vocal minority is holding up debate with their absolutist views. To some, any effort to restrict firearms is viewed an all-out assault on their very way of life.
|
I may just be dense, but it’s not clear to me why gun owners should have privacy rights keeping private the very fact that they own a weapon. If you are a law abiding citizen, why are you afraid of a database? If it turns out your weapon was used in a crime, wouldn’t you like to know?
You see, contrary to what you may have been told, no one is going door to door trying to confiscate your guns. Gun rights have actually expanded in recent years.
It’s true that guns are part of the culture of our country, far more so than elsewhere in the world. Reliable data are difficult to come by, but most estimates suggest that guns are at least twice as prevalent in the US as in the next highest country and several times higher than most countries. And this has come at quite a cost.
Thus far, the only solution offered by the NRA is to arm more people, including ones who mostly don’t want to be packing; teachers, school administrators and custodians. They want guns everywhere on the discredited premise that if everyone has guns, we’ll all be safer. The evidence is far stronger that there will simply be more accidents, more mass shootings, and when crime occurs, it will be far deadlier because there are so many weapons present.
And don’t believe the NRA’s call to ‘just enforce existing law’. Their lobbyists have done everything they can to make that as difficult as possible.
When I first wrote about this in 2013, what struck me was how extreme the position of some gun rights advocates has become. It reflected clearly in the responses I received.
I say some, because polling on the subject differs substantially from what you hear in the media. What is clear is that the proposals that have actually been made to deal with guns–things like universal background checks and banning large magazines and assault rifles have widespread support. One Gallup poll showed 91 percent support for universal background checks, including support from 74 percent of NRA member households.
While the public isn’t that divided, a vocal minority is holding up debate with their absolutist views. To some, any effort to restrict firearms is viewed an all-out assault on their very way of life. When I first wrote about this, one reader emailed me to suggest that I was supporting slavery. The irony of this is apparently lost on the reader as one of the reasons the amendment was included (one among several) was the fear among southern slaveholders of a slave revolt.
Another email I received seemed to associate gun control with the Nazis, something that has become quite common. There is a common myth that the Nazis banned firearm ownership. In fact, the Nazis relaxed gun ownership rules for everyone except Jews and other groups they hated.
The same reader also associates gun control with World War II Japanese internment, and the slaughter of Native Americans. An Illinois state representative compared gun control with castration, perhaps fitting given how some gun enthusiasts seem to associate their weapons with their manhood.
Advocates of the absolutist view of the second amendment seem to ignore that none of our rights are absolute. We have the right to free speech, but not to libel or slander. We have freedom of religion, but still ban animal sacrifices and we don’t allow religion to be imposed on others through the state.
Likewise, those arguing for reasonable limits on gun ownership aren’t turning our backs on the constitution. We’re expressing the understanding that there are limits to all of our rights and public safety is a valid concern. The founding fathers never conceived of military assault rifles.
Guns aren’t the cause of all of our problems. But the easy access to firearms in the US is at least part of the problem and we ought to address it. If we cannot discuss it after a particular newsworthy gun-related event, we never will.
|
Perhaps the most interesting argument is one that has become very popular lately–that the second amendment was established in order to allow citizens to overthrow a potentially oppressive government.
Supporters of this idea pull out a number of quotes from the founding fathers in support of their thesis, some of them fake. Fox News host Sean Hannity has used fake George Washington quotes. Near where I live, a newspaper columnist used a fake quote from Thomas Jefferson to support this thesis.
Nevermind that the constitution defined pretty clearly what it would mean if citizens rose up against the government. It was called treason. The founding fathers were quick to defend the government against uprisings. Look up the Shays’ rebellion or the Whiskey rebellion. The leaders of both of those events would have said they were defending the principles of revolution. Nonetheless, the founders of that revolution didn’t hesitate to use violence to suppress them.
But, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for a moment. One piece of evidence in support of this argument is that when the constitution was written, the average citizen had weapons essentially the same as those of the government–muskets that took close to a full minute to load one ball. In a battle between citizens and an oppressive government, the odds might have been close to even from an arms point of view.
Much has changed since the 18th century. Let’s assume the government becomes oppressive or even that it already is. What kinds of arms could they use to quell a citizen uprising?
Well, to start with, there are automatic rifles, surface to air missiles, grenade and rocket launchers, flamethrowers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, landmines, armored personnel carriers, tanks, nuclear submarines, unmanned combat vehicles (drones), aircraft carriers, heat-seeking missiles, fighter jets, not to mention thermonuclear warheads. Need I go on?
However much merit this argument about the intent of the founding fathers might have had, it seems rather moot now. Do you really think the average citizen has a right to even a fraction of these weapons? Worse, don’t think of the ‘average’ citizen. Think about the craziest (but undiagnosed) person you know with a few of these in his closet.
Of course, you could take the alternate pacifist view, that citizens don’t have the right to these weapons, but neither does the government. I’d like to live in that world, but until it’s negotiated internationally, I don’t think we should be the first nation to disarm.
But, if the government must be on the same level with citizens , it has to be one or the other.
As much as I mistrust the government, it seems to me that in our modern world, the military has need of weapons that the average citizen doesn’t need to be anywhere near. Once we understand that, while reasonable people may disagree about where to draw the line, we ought to be able to agree that it’s a policy debate, not an issue of constitutional rights.
Guns aren’t the cause of all of our problems. There are many reasons why we lead the world in gun violence: a broken mental health system, widespread poverty and inequality, breakdown in basic social structures, and media-instilled fear among others.
But the easy access to firearms in the US is at least part of the problem and we ought to address it. If we cannot discuss it after a particular newsworthy gun-related event, we never will. Because these events are becoming far too common.
So, when can we talk?
—An earlier version of this piece appeared in 2013 in the Porterville Recorder.
Photo: M&R Glasgow/Flickr
Lets talk now. But while we are talking, instead of just about gun control…how we talk about Criminal Control, and Mental Health support, and all the other things that lead into the tragedies we are witnessing.
And why is it that you people always want to take away my rights, instead of focusing on items that will actually DETER CRIMINALS, not disarm people like me.
“For example, why does anyone need a military-style automatic or semi-automatic assault rifle for personal protection or hunting? Are you such a bad shot that you need a weapon that fires thirty rounds per second? Are deer that fast?” In real life guns aren’t magic talismans – and violent criminals often travel in packs. These rifles are also popular for hunting as they are extremely customizable and affordable and offer many features. “How realistic is it really that you’ll need ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? How often are those likely to be needed for personal protection as… Read more »
“We’ve been told several times in the past couple of years that “it’s not the right time” to talk about gun control. ”
This is a great time to talk about gun control!
Let’s get rid of those silly restrictions on firearm mufflers (aka suppressors aka “silencers”)!!!
Then can we please get rid of that silly restriction on buying post 1986 machine guns?
And how about nationwide constitutional carry of concealed firearms? Are we all on board yet?
Cheerio!
When can we talk? It appears to me that every time things like this happens there is nothing but talk about gun control. And because most of the mainstream media is liberal, all the talk is “gun control” and nothing else. I get so sick of these so called debates which are not debates at all. The only stats that ever count are the ones that come out of the liberal media, which BTW are usually off. When can we talk? When there isn’t a month that goes by in Chicago where 20+ people aren’t murdered. When can we talk?… Read more »
Regarding your statement that guns in the hands of citizens could never defeat an organized military, I suggest you ask the Vietcong or Afghan resistance who both defeated America and Russia. Even closer to home are police and Federal agents using full-auto military weapons against civilians. Or tossing flashbang grenades which burn children by mistake. You may want to check Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership at http://www.jpfo.org for more information. Look at your typical SWAT cop: dressed in black, Nazi helmets, German made automatic weapons. The only thing missing are the swastika armbands.