(December 14th) As news continues to trickle in about the tragedy that transpired in Newtown, my heart is broken piece by piece. Even as an adult, I wrestle with the question of why? Why was this allowed to happen? How could these tragedies...Columbine, Aurora, and Virginia Tech (where several of my colleagues died) to name just a few of the many that we've seen in recent years...happen?
I don't pretend to struggle with the question of 'How could God allow this?' as that is clearly, to me, not the issue (no matter what you believe in, the premise that we have free will lays blame squarely upon us, unless you're expecting divine intervention...). No. Rather, i struggle with the concept of how do we, as a society, allow this to happen?
It's tempting to fill this space with a monologue against our lax gun control laws (after all, who out there is surprised to hear that I'm for more stringent gun control laws), but I shall endeavor to not go too far into this. I understand that people desire a method to hunt, to protect themselves (though the question of 'from whom are you trying to protect yourself with an automatic rifle' does flash through my mind), and to collect.
I don't, however, understand why we need such powerful weapons to fill each of these gaps? I don't understand why we have a system that makes it easy for psychologically disturbed individuals (not always easy to tell, but rather apparent in the case of Virginia Tech and Aurora) to easily acquire high powered weapons (and that is what they are, weapons in the very purest sense of the word...semi-automatic assault rifles, smoke grenades, etc.). I don't understand why we make guns easily accessible to minors.
The concepts of responsibility seem to be lacking at several stages in this process. Do I think that we must drastically scale back what's available to be sold and owned? No. I fear that that might be an over reaction of sorts. Do I think that we should revisit our gun control laws, place some controls, require more responsibility and registration, and limit what and how much is sold? To some extent, yes. As I mentioned above, why do we need to own automatic or semi-automatic guns and rifles?
I understand our constitutional right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves and our state. That constitutional right also spells out that a well prepared militia is instrumental in protecting our nation. Times have changed though. Back when the constitution was written, we were actively warring against Native Americans, French, Spanish, and the British. We were in the midst of a revolutionary war, in which all citizens of the state were needed to rise up and throw off what we perceived to be a yoke of oppression, whether in an organized or guerrilla style campaign.
Times have changed. Are we presently worried, though, of our families being scalped while on the homestead or taking goods to town? Of course not, that very notion now seems silly and offensive on many levels. Are we worried about the red coats coming again? No! (Though some may argue that it's rational to fear another type of red, but in this day and age, an all out war such as that would be ridiculous and detrimental to all parties involved). So then why do we need a well armed plebeian militia above and beyond our national guard and our military?
Do we still have a right to protect ourselves and our family? Of course...but in order to do so, how much do you really need to protect yourself from a home invasion? An automatic pistol? Two? Ten? A semi-automatic rifle? There are reasonable limits to be placed here that rational thought could help us arrive at. Sadly, this seems to not be employed. I hear some of the arguments for lax gun control equivocating the ownership of a bushmaster to that of a Ferrari. Why own one? Because it's completely different and more fun/exotic than your run of the mill car. Well, by that logic, why not allow legalization of drugs? Ecstasy is more exotic than your run of the mill Advil. Or how about nuclear hand grenades (sadly, such a thing did exist at one point)? They're much more exotic than a rat trap...
For people that feel that their rights are infringed upon by not being able to use these types of weapons, why not allow for them to be available under strict control at gun ranges. Heck, you could even imagine installing a safety device that disarmed the gun if taken off premises and sprayed you with paint (much like anti-theft devices in stores or grocery cart locking mechanisms).
Speaking of rights, what about my right to feel safe and secure? Do I feel safe when I see a non-police officer walking around with a gun visible? No. Do I feel safe when I think of a student carrying a gun on to campus, a right that the NRA is fighting for? No! I should be allowed to feel safe where I live, where I work, and where I eat and shop. For that right to be infringed upon because one or two individuals feel that their constitutional right to bear arms supersedes our right to feel safe and secure is sad.
Events such as the Trayvon Martin killing could be avoided. If we're sincere about enforcing safety, then why take a lethal weapon to a non-life threatening situation when a Taser or rubber bullets would suffice instead? Seriously, why? I'm not saying that this is the solution...there're too many things to consider by far for it to be that simple, but baby steps.
I can only dream that one day, the horrors that we've collectively experienced, with our children being shot in a presumably safe environment of education, are but a distant nightmare.
Edit: In closing, an exert from Slate: Could this shooting be the one that shakes us out of our deadly paralysis about the twin problems of limitless access to guns and untreated mental illness?
I don't pretend to struggle with the question of 'How could God allow this?' as that is clearly, to me, not the issue (no matter what you believe in, the premise that we have free will lays blame squarely upon us, unless you're expecting divine intervention...). No. Rather, i struggle with the concept of how do we, as a society, allow this to happen?
It's tempting to fill this space with a monologue against our lax gun control laws (after all, who out there is surprised to hear that I'm for more stringent gun control laws), but I shall endeavor to not go too far into this. I understand that people desire a method to hunt, to protect themselves (though the question of 'from whom are you trying to protect yourself with an automatic rifle' does flash through my mind), and to collect.
I don't, however, understand why we need such powerful weapons to fill each of these gaps? I don't understand why we have a system that makes it easy for psychologically disturbed individuals (not always easy to tell, but rather apparent in the case of Virginia Tech and Aurora) to easily acquire high powered weapons (and that is what they are, weapons in the very purest sense of the word...semi-automatic assault rifles, smoke grenades, etc.). I don't understand why we make guns easily accessible to minors.
The concepts of responsibility seem to be lacking at several stages in this process. Do I think that we must drastically scale back what's available to be sold and owned? No. I fear that that might be an over reaction of sorts. Do I think that we should revisit our gun control laws, place some controls, require more responsibility and registration, and limit what and how much is sold? To some extent, yes. As I mentioned above, why do we need to own automatic or semi-automatic guns and rifles?
I understand our constitutional right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves and our state. That constitutional right also spells out that a well prepared militia is instrumental in protecting our nation. Times have changed though. Back when the constitution was written, we were actively warring against Native Americans, French, Spanish, and the British. We were in the midst of a revolutionary war, in which all citizens of the state were needed to rise up and throw off what we perceived to be a yoke of oppression, whether in an organized or guerrilla style campaign.
Times have changed. Are we presently worried, though, of our families being scalped while on the homestead or taking goods to town? Of course not, that very notion now seems silly and offensive on many levels. Are we worried about the red coats coming again? No! (Though some may argue that it's rational to fear another type of red, but in this day and age, an all out war such as that would be ridiculous and detrimental to all parties involved). So then why do we need a well armed plebeian militia above and beyond our national guard and our military?
Do we still have a right to protect ourselves and our family? Of course...but in order to do so, how much do you really need to protect yourself from a home invasion? An automatic pistol? Two? Ten? A semi-automatic rifle? There are reasonable limits to be placed here that rational thought could help us arrive at. Sadly, this seems to not be employed. I hear some of the arguments for lax gun control equivocating the ownership of a bushmaster to that of a Ferrari. Why own one? Because it's completely different and more fun/exotic than your run of the mill car. Well, by that logic, why not allow legalization of drugs? Ecstasy is more exotic than your run of the mill Advil. Or how about nuclear hand grenades (sadly, such a thing did exist at one point)? They're much more exotic than a rat trap...
For people that feel that their rights are infringed upon by not being able to use these types of weapons, why not allow for them to be available under strict control at gun ranges. Heck, you could even imagine installing a safety device that disarmed the gun if taken off premises and sprayed you with paint (much like anti-theft devices in stores or grocery cart locking mechanisms).
Speaking of rights, what about my right to feel safe and secure? Do I feel safe when I see a non-police officer walking around with a gun visible? No. Do I feel safe when I think of a student carrying a gun on to campus, a right that the NRA is fighting for? No! I should be allowed to feel safe where I live, where I work, and where I eat and shop. For that right to be infringed upon because one or two individuals feel that their constitutional right to bear arms supersedes our right to feel safe and secure is sad.
Events such as the Trayvon Martin killing could be avoided. If we're sincere about enforcing safety, then why take a lethal weapon to a non-life threatening situation when a Taser or rubber bullets would suffice instead? Seriously, why? I'm not saying that this is the solution...there're too many things to consider by far for it to be that simple, but baby steps.
I can only dream that one day, the horrors that we've collectively experienced, with our children being shot in a presumably safe environment of education, are but a distant nightmare.
Edit: In closing, an exert from Slate: Could this shooting be the one that shakes us out of our deadly paralysis about the twin problems of limitless access to guns and untreated mental illness?
In the United States, we’re divided, and we have no universal basic knowledge of weapons. We make it incredibly easy to buy the kind of weapons that shoot and shoot again instantly, but we don’t search people at the doors of schools or malls or movie theaters, and we don’t post armed guards in these places. We have the guns without the safety checks. We call that freedom. We invoke the current Supreme Court’s understanding of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Lower courts strike down bans on carrying concealed weapons, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit did last Tuesday, eliminating an Illinois law.
The cost of this definition of freedom is too high: That’s the point advocates for gun control make, over and over again. If this lesson sunk in, maybe we’d take seriously the results in Australia, where a massacre of 35 people led to a 1996 ban on semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. (Adam Lanza had the first, according to reports.) Australia also started a mandatory buy-back program for the weapons it banned. A drop in the firearm homicide rate and the firearm suicide rate followed, according to some research. There are other, smaller fixes, a by now familiar list: Bring back the ban on assault weapons, which Congress allowed to expire in 2004. Ban the sale of rapid-fire ammunition. Quit letting people buy weapons at gun shows without background checks. That alone could help keep guns out of the hands of some people who are mentally ill and not getting treated.Edit 2: More documented evidence relating increased gun control to declines in gun homicide rates for those of you out there that think it won't make any difference for some reason...
No comments:
Post a Comment