LET'S DO AWAY WITH GUNS ALTOGETHER

GUN OWNERSHIP AND THE BREAKDOWN OF THE COMMON GOOD.

No other icon of the American identity simultaneously carries with it such unabated reverence, pride, fear and disgust as guns.  Guns are as much a part of the American self-image as apple pie, Monday Night Football and beer pong.  The latest numbers indicate 100 to 200 million people in the US are gun owners, with anywhere from 300 to 700 million total guns in the country, to be used in myriad reasons, to include protection, hunting, sport shooting and such.  Guns are, in fact, so ingrained in our national identity that, for many, the thought of giving them up is tantamount to asking a man to share his wife or sell his children.  For others, they just wish the damned things were gone.

While the gun advocates chant “Don’t tread on me” as they consider their interpretations of the 2^nd Amendment to be satisfactory justification of their right to accumulate as many firearms as possible,  a staggeringly high 75% of polled Americans expressed support for further gun control.  Why is it, then, that a minority can impose so much influence on a stark majority? Or is it that a significant portion of the nation is ambivalent to the debate, except in the immediate aftermath of a crisis that hits a little too home?

The anti-gun community has expressed its viewpoints on this matter, stating that Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and the Aurora movie theater all have two things in common – psychopaths and guns.  It is true that no matter how you spin it, these crimes were indeed committed by a mentally-unstable individual wielding a firearm.  I doubt anyone could disagree with this.  Where people start to disagree, however, is when discussion arises about upon whom the blame should fall as well as potential methods of preventing yet another sorrowful chapter in what seems to be our endless tome of firearm-based carnage in the US with a frequency that is suffered by no other stable developed democracy.

Pro- and con- arguments flood the internet, TV and talk radio.  It is arguable no other social issue exists, outside of abortion, that can fan the flames of discontent better than the mere discussion of guns.  The anti-gun movement protests that guns should be more tightly regulated or even abolished.  Likewise, an often-heard remark from the pro-gun community is that if we were to ban guns because they kill people, should we likewise ban cars, baseball bats, rocks or virtually anything that could be used as a weapon?  Obviously, the major difference is that these other objects have alternative uses in society, while guns are made with one single purpose in mind – the bullet fires and something is destroyed or dies, but we get the point; you do have to place blame on the operator of the gun as well. 

Yes, a great number of sharp, blunt or heavy objects can kill people when wielded by a person with intent.  Guns are just objects that are much more efficient at it.  Arguments posed by either side, however, rarely have any impact on the opposing debating parties.  As with any hot-button social issue, the guise of “open and honest debate” is frequently a facade for “I’m going to scream my opinions louder than you.” After even a few minutes watching news TV or listening to talk radio, it is evident to see that nobody really wants to have open and honest debate about anything.  They just want to make their point in a louder means than the other guy.

THE LOCAL ARMS RACE

The American education system ranks 25^th in the world, behind many third world countries.  Another recent poll indicates that 50% of Americans cannot understand an 8^th grade-level book, with the national reading comprehension level averaging out around 7^th grade.  Given this, it is hard to argue the statement that America is rife with idiots; many of which are also irresponsible. The problem, then, with allowing everybody to have a gun, is that the sea of irresponsible idiots can quite easily turn into irresponsible gun owners, or arguably it is their right to.

Department of Justice statistics show that, on average, nearly 500,000 guns are reported stolen in the US every year, arguably because irresponsible people would not store their firearms in a safe and secure area.  That makes 500,000 new guns in the hands of criminals every year, who otherwise would have had a much more difficult time procuring a firearm.  It is expected, then, that the rest of the law-abiding people will develop the mentality that they should buy more guns to protect themselves from the bad guys.  In an endless cycle, the more criminals that acquire guns, the more the public begins to stockpile arms to ward off criminals, which are then stolen, putting more guns into the hands of criminals, and so on.  From the criminal viewpoint, it is easy to understand that if law-abiding citizens take part in an arms race to protect themselves, then criminals virtually have to do the same in order to effectively commit crime, as it makes little sense to try to rob someone with a baseball bat when your victim might have a gun.

So why is there a never-ending need for criminals to acquire firearms?  Why do they need this constant inflow of weapons? Simply put, criminal possession of a gun is usually short-term.  If a gun is used to harm someone, the gun will likely soon be ditched.   Therefore, said criminal will somehow need to restock his arsenal.  Criminals also lose guns by the guns becoming inoperable due to substandard care and storage, as well as those found by police which are seized and destroyed.  It is easy to see the correlation here - without a significant source of legal guns, the supply dries up at some point.

Criminals are only part of the American gun violence problem though.  While a significant amount of US gun deaths are indeed committed by predisposed criminals, most of these crimes are criminal-on-criminal.  Therefore, it is arguable that the true threat to law-abiding public safety is mass shootings, which almost always are facilitated with legally-purchased firearms.  Because of this, many have called for more rigorous mental testing for would-be gun owners.  While it is a significant step in the right direction, the actual implementation of this is nearly impossible as any politician who dares impede the NRA’s agenda is targeted with large sums of donated dollars to run smear campaign ads.  Not to mention, clinical psychology is more or less a science based on the interpretation and opinion of whoever is administering the testing, so arguably all conclusions have the potential to be incorrect or appealed.

The reality is that since we can’t easily determine who is likely to be the next Sandy Hook murderer we need to focus on the weapons used in murders.  According to the FBI, nearly 70% of all murders are committed using a gun.  Therefore, it makes sense to specifically focus our attention on banning guns outright.  There, I said it.

Of course, the logistics of implementing such a ban can make one’s head spin, but level of difficulty should not be a reason to completely abandon the idea.  Other countries have implemented these types of bans, and they have been wildly successful.  Since its implementation, Great Britain averages around 30 handgun deaths per year and has had only one mass shooting in decades.  Australia implemented a weapons-for-cash exchange in 1996 and has not had a mass shooting since.  If the rest of the world’s citizenry chooses compliance over being a stubborn outlaw, why is it so hard to believe we couldn’t do the same?  Has American exceptionalism gone so far to our heads that we think we are somehow better than the rest of the civilized world?

THE SWISS MODEL

Switzerland has the second-highest gun ownership rate in the civilized world and one of the lowest gun violence rates.  Pro-gunners love to reference the Swiss when it comes to the debate about gun proliferation.  High rates of ownership and low rates of use must indicate that the gun is not at fault, right?

While it is indeed true that Switzerland issues a rifle to every able-bodied man, it is done so that the man may defend the homeland in the event of an invasion.  Another stark difference is that all of these men are part of a professionally trained militia, not just your average citizen.  They also receive significant amounts of training in firearms operation and safety.  Additionally, these men are not allowed to use the weapons to defend themselves, only to defend the country.  While every militia member is issued a rifle, none are allowed to keep ammunition at home.   The ammunition is instead stored at a secured facility, only to be accessed when needed.  Hence, the number of functioning weapons in private hands is small, and the number of gun deaths is understandably very low.

The Swiss model simply does not apply.

WHAT ABOUT CANADA?

Our neighbors to the north enjoy the #3 ranking on the most gun-saturated list of civilized nations.  Their gun violence rate, however, is also staggeringly lower in percentage than compared to the US, likely due to a difference in national mindset as well as harsher controls on the sale of firearms.

Canadians have different reasons for firearms ownership than many Americans; they mostly possess guns for hunting, not personal protection.  In addition, many Canadians keep their rifles at a sporting or gun club instead of at home.  The belief that guns are necessary to protect yourself and your possessions from other humans is simply not something that enters into the psyche of most Canadians.  Furthermore, while you can theoretically own any kind of gun you want in Canada, licensing becomes more stringent for the more dangerous guns.  Gun merchants are also more cautious about who they sell guns to, for fear of prosecution should a violent crime be committed as a result of the purchase.

THE AMERICAN PROBLEM

So what is it about the US that makes us so protective and obsessive about our guns?  Arguably there are an infinite amount of reasons and variables that constitute each person’s love affair with, or hatred of, firearms.  However, when backed into a corner, the gun advocate will always drop the “2^nd Amendment bomb” claiming that it is his right, deemed by the Founding Fathers, for him to own firearms to protect against oppressive governments and those who would threaten his life or land.  This viewpoint begins to touch on what many believe to be the root cause for such defiance at the aspect of mass disarmament; that is the belief that Americans are somehow above the influence of the international community and are entitled to most rights so long as they can convolute an ancient writing to support their personal viewpoint. 

It should be noted, however, that ambiguity between federal and state guidelines lend their fair share of confusion to the argument, as nobody can seem to come to a consensus on which is the best way to regulate gun ownership.  Every state has passed legislation as to how they believe gun ownership should be regulated, if at all.  The stark differences in gun legislation from state to state can provide for some rather easy work-arounds for people wanting to obtain weapons that otherwise cannot in certain states.

Because of this, the implementation of a national gun law should be considered.  Revoke the rights of the states and place responsibility with the federal government to regulate gun commerce under one unified law.  This will likely sour the faces of advocates who claim the power to legislate should lie within state legislatures and not Washington DC.  All I can say to that is; we had this same argument in the 1800s.  The South lost.  Get over it.

A more radical possibility to consider, yet the one possibility that will guarantee an end to gun violence, is the outright repeal of the 2^nd Amendment.  Of course, many citizens would be up in arms at the mere mention of this idea, but given the almost annual shift and transformation in federal gun policy, is it any worse to frankly discuss the revocation of a piece of 240 year old legislation to fit the values of modern society than it is to slowly wear away at the Bill of Rights while simultaneously pretending they are our nation’s founding values?  At least an outright repeal would be an honest approach.

What makes the use of the 2^nd Amendment as a defense laughable is that it has been willfully misinterpreted for decades.  Admittedly, at its adoption, it clearly allowed for the right to carry arms within the context of “organized militias”.  However, it nowhere within the body of the text does it allow for unfettered access to firearms by individuals.  This is likely due to the Founding Fathers not being complete idiots.  Not to mention, the Bill of Rights was written during the days of flintlock rifles which would fire a single shot and would take up to a minute to reload.  The Founding Fathers could never dream of an era of extremely high-powered semi-automatic weapons capable of shooting thousands of rounds per minute and a market that would make them available to nearly everybody.

The true purpose 2^nd Amendment was to allow the militia to keep a foreign invasion at bay.  The “militia”, of which the Founding Fathers spoke, was supposed to prevent the need for a standing army and its members were to receive the best weapons and equipment available to the military.  Therefore, the mere presence of organized standing armed forces negates the Constitutional need for a militia.  In addition, the handgun; America’s favorite 2^nd amendment weapon, has no place in the 2^nd Amendment argument as it is worthless in armed conflict.  It is a backup weapon to be used in close-quarters combat, not to stave off an enemy invasion.

Some may argue it is therefore the answer to recognize the current US Constitution for what it is – a relic from history which needs to be updated to reflect the fact that a militia is no longer needed to stave off an enemy invasion.  In the eyes of the anti-gun movement, banning the ownership of all guns would be a significant step, not only in making the country safer but also so our Constitution reflects the ideals and values of modern civilized society.

CONFRONTING THE “ME” SOCIETY

As one pays attention to the world around them, it is easy to observe that American society has taken a significantly selfish hyper-individualistic turn for the worse in the past few decades, so much so that the new American mantra should be changed from “Liberty and Justice for all” to “I’ll do what’s best for me and f*** the rest of you.”   Unfortunately, for how selfish and immature this seems, the viewpoint by most gun advocates is glaringly similar.  Frankly, those who believe that gun ownership is necessary to protect themselves are viewing the issue at an individual level, rather than a national level for the collective good.  To the gun advocate, the issue isn’t how many people are killed each year by guns, it is that his/her odds of surviving life-threatening conflict are improved by having the gun.  The annual 30,000 US deaths by guns mean nothing to the individual who chooses personal safety over collective safety, even in face of the fact that more Americans have been killed in America by guns since 1970 than have died in wars, since the Civil War, combined.  These numbers certainly seem to suggest that pro-gun sentiment is proof that Americans just don’t give a s*** about each other, and that keeping our toys and playing cowboy is far more important.  Facts and figures simply do not matter anymore.

Excuses for why guns are necessary abound from every corner of the country, ranging from the need to self-protect from criminals to rural residents claiming they need to protect their families from dangerous animals.  It seems to be an ineradicable part of the American psyche that the answer to any problem is to shoot something.  When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.  Perhaps gun advocates would view the outside world differently if they weren’t racked with paranoia that their house was up next on the burglary list or that Obama was coming to take everything from them.  In the spirit of debate, I pose a challenge to the gun community: give up your guns for two months.  Give them to a friend or lock them up at a gun club.  See how your perception of the world changes when you stop thinking of everyone as a potential assailant.  If you still feel just as threatened after those two months, by all means write me back.  Please prove me wrong.  For the love of the future of this country, I hope I am.

Categories: