The unthinkable has happened. Again. Thus far, 2012 has left 27 dead in Connecticut, 7 dead in Wisconsin, 12 dead in Colorado, 7 dead in California, 6 dead in Washington, and 7 dead in Minnesota – and these are only the mass shootings. One has to wonder when we’ll stop categorizing such events as ‘unthinkable’, because right now, they are anything but. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, 6 have happened since 2007. These events are, tragically, more than just thinkable, they are regular and we need to do something about it. Now is not the time for platitudes and rhetoric, it is the time for meaningful action. Yes, I’m suggesting legislation that restricts the ownership of guns, but first I want to make a few things clear.
Some would say that now is not the time to talk about this. I disagree. Friday was not the time to talk about this. Friday was a day to pray for peace for the victims. Friday was a day to weep over the death of the innocent. Friday was a day to hold your loved ones close. But Friday has passed. We do not expect the families directly involved to cease their mourning, nor do we ever expect it. We do not expect them to wipe away their tears and participate in this discussion. But as their neighbors, as their fellow countryman, today is the day to stand up in their place and move to affect real change, change that starts making these events ‘unthinkable’ again. If it isn’t these events that finally push us to make a change, than what will? 5 days after President Kennedy was assassinated, a bill was introduced to restrict mail-order sales of guns (which is how Oswald obtained the rifle used to shoot the President). I mention this to highlight the simple truth that legislation is a response to real-life events and right now, nothing is more real than what happened in Newtown and nothing deserves a more swift response.
Others would say that violence is the problem, not guns. I partially agree. The culture of violence in America is deeply rooted in nearly every crevice of our society and it needs to be addressed. That said, deeply rooted flaws are not eradicated overnight. It may be years, even decades, before the pervasiveness of violence could be snuffed out. Legislation that better regulates gun ownership doesn’t happen overnight either, but it certainly doesn’t have to take years. It could be done within a matter of months. The 535 elected officials in Congress may not be able to reverse a culture’s glorification of violence within the next few months, but they can enact laws that make the ownership of military-grade weaponry illegal. Guns may not be America’s only problem, but to say that they are not part of the problem would be a willful ignorance of the facts (more on that in a moment).
One last point of clarification: we must be careful to avoid an over response that misses the point and does little to actually prevent mass shootings. If you’ve been through an airport anytime in the last decade, you’ll know what I mean. 9/11 was a horrific, godless event. We were right to declare a worldwide war on terrorism, but we were wrong to make people take off their shoes before every flight. The TSA is a joke of a security measure and that is not the kind of response anyone is advocating for. We’re looking for real-change with visible effects, not a costly charade. All clarifications being made, let’s deal with some of the claims routinely made by defenders of freedom and the second-amendment.
First, there is the saying that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. That’s great and all, but people kill people with guns. As such, we should lessen the number of guns in the possession of people! This argument is often followed by a statement about how guns are just tools and if we legislate guns, we’ll have to legislate kitchen knives, novelty swords, metal pipes, 2 by 4’s, and any other object that could be used to kill someone. Here’s the thing though: a knife is no where near as deadly as the Sig Sauer and Glock handguns used in Connecticut or the 12-guage tactical shotgun used in Colorado. Coincidentally, on the same Friday as the tragedy in Newtown, a man broke into an elementary school in the Henan province of China and stabbed 22 children. It was another senseless act of violence. The silver lining? All 22 victims are still alive. You know why? China has strict laws regarding gun ownership and knives aren’t as deadly as guns. Stop stating the obvious about “people killing people” and “guns are only objects” as if some great philosophical point has been proven and all discussion must therefore end. Guns are objects used by people to kill large numbers of other people in a shockingly short amount of time. The same cannot be said about a butter knife.
Next, you’ll likely hear an argument that “car accidents cause more deaths than guns. Should we outlaw cars too?” The data is true, more people die in car accidents, but the premise is ridiculous. First, I would point out that the primary purpose of a car is transportation, whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to quickly and accurately exact death upon something or someone. In other words, we’re not comparing apples to apples here. Greg Sargent, of the Washington Post, summed it up best though, “Yes, cars kill people too. But few would advocate for getting rid of traffic lights and crosswalks in the name of freedom.” So, while you have to practice a certain amount of driving and pass a few exams before being granted the freedom of wielding an object of transportation, the same is not true before you’re allowed to wield an object of death.
Speaking of freedom, the next argument you’re likely to hear is the second-amendment. To avoid any confusion, I’ve quoted it below.
“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.”
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I do know that when the framers of this great nation penned this section, their definition of “arms” was a rifle that needed to be refilled with gunpowder and a bullet after a single shot – it was not a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle (like the one used in Aurora, CO). The times have changed and we have to stop ignoring that. Additionally, it must be stated that the right to “keep and bear arms”, as defined by the framers, was for the purpose of maintaining a “well regulated militia”. Today’s landscape of gun ownership looks like anything but “regulated”, much less a functioning “militia”. A look through our early history will also show that at least 10 states in the 1800’s (including Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas) had laws that specifically outlawed the carrying of concealed weapons. For more on this aspect, see Jill Lepore’s excellent piece in the New Yorker, from which I have greatly leaned upon in this section. The point I’d like to make here though is that legislation that increases regulation of gun ownership does not have to impede on the second-amendment. My vision is not for every sportsman to be forced to turn in his favorite hunting rifle. My vision is one in which the sportsman doesn’t need a semi-automatic assault rifle designed for combat in order to kill a deer. Or, in the famous words of Garry Wills, “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.”
The last argument (or at least the last I’ll mention here) is that if the Newtown teachers had been armed, the killer could have been stopped before any damage was done. You might also hear it put like this, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” You might also hear that if more people carry guns, killers will be more “afraid” and “think twice” before going on a shooting spree. Basically, each sentiment seeks to state that more guns will equal less death. There is a lot to unpack in these statements, but we’ll start with research done by Lisa Hepburn and David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, which clearly states that “where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.” Also of note is a graph by Duke University’s Kieran Healy which shows that America is at least twice as violent as other countries with OECD membership. Couple that with Max Fisher’s findings that among the same group of countries, America easily has more guns per citizen than any other country, and you start to see a clear picture in which more guns does not equal less death. Beyond the numbers, there is the common sense point that the deeply-troubled individuals who carry out mass shootings are probably not in any kind of state to “think twice” about what a gun-toting, hero-citizen would do to them. These murderers are not lauded as great “thinkers” and we’re giving them far too much credit to believe that they would be deterred by the existence of concealed-carry laws. In short, the answer to a bad guy with a gun is to simply take away his access to a gun.
It would be naive to say that this isn’t a complex issue, but I do not believe it to be so complex that we are forced to remain paralyzed by an illusion of freedom that the founders may or may not have envisioned. We are facing regular, mass shootings. Something has to change. I’m happy to know that Dianne Feinstein, Senator from California, will be introducing a bill to ban assault weapons on the first day of the new Congress. My hope is that the final product presented to the House and the Senate is more than just reactionary politicking. An assault weapons ban is a good start, but there are plenty of other measures, such as limiting the amount of ammunition a magazine can hold, banning military-grade ammunition that is designed to burst and cause maximum damage upon impact, and closing the gun-show loophole, that need to be considered.
Even if you don’t agree with me, please take some time and consider taking these two actions:
- Educate yourself. The issue of gun-control is not going away and there are valid points to be heard on both sides of the issue. Again, even if you don’t agree with my words above, please do your civic duty and fully educate yourself on the topic. I have provided several links throughout this article and still plenty more below. Consider each resource carefully and honestly wrestle with what is presented.
- Write a local representative. Whether they like it or not, politicians work for you and I. The only way they’ll know how their constituents feel about this issue is if we tell them. You don’t have to write an essay, but a simple paragraph detailing where you stand could go a long way, especially if we all do it. Use this resource for getting in touch with your respective representatives.
If you’d like some quality, thought-provoking reading on both sides of the issue, I found the following links to be most helpful to me.
Further reading:
Battleground America
Assault Weapons Ban, Q&A
What Would ‘Meaningful Action’ Could Look Like?
To Keep and Bear Arms
Our Moloch
America, Guns, and Freedom (Part 1)
America, Guns, and Freedom (Part 2)
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
The Case For More Guns
Obama According to the Brady Institute
The Shootings of 2012
