Guns – America’s Fears and Infatuation

 

 The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech has brought the issue of gun control to the forefront of our public debate yet again. After every tragedy the advocates of gun control argue that prohibiting the ownership of handguns will make us safer while the pro-gun lobby argues that the problem is the person behind the gun. Using pure logic the pro gun lobby is right but, as in all issues, both sides make good points and bad points. After another tragedy what progress has been made on the debate over guns?

 

The Pro-Gun Stance

  

The Second Amendment to the Constitution defends a person’s right to possess a gun. What is so important about guns that our founders place such a high value on them?  When the Constitution was written the country was largely rural and hunting was still an important source of food. In the 18^th century armies were formed by farmers banding together for a common cause.  The British tried to disarm the farmer-army to weaken our ability to organize a revolt against the King’s rule. Clearly our founders wanted to preserve the right of people to bear arms. But times have changed. Today we have grocery stores, professional police, the National Guard, and a professional army. Though we no longer rely on rabbit stew and the neighborhood banding together to form a militia, the Constitution still guarantees the right to own a gun.

 

Gun owners also make a good point when they remind us that a gun is no more than a piece of metal; it only becomes dangerous when it is placed in someone’s hand. Gun advocates argue that we need to focus on the criminal and not the law abiding gun owner.

 

The Stance of Gun Control Advocates

 

Each tragedy involving guns adds fuel to the argument that if the gun were not in the hands of the perpetrator the tragedy would not have happened. This argument assumes that perpetrators would have absolutely no access to a gun from any source. If we could insure that every source of guns dried up we could reduce killing rampages to knives or to throwing rocks.

 

The Reality

 

First, what is the reality behind our infatuation with Guns? The principal interest in guns is sport and self-defense.  No one can reasonably argue against the use of a gun for sport unless you are down range of Cheney; but what about the use of a gun for self defense? Statistics show that a gun is vastly more likely to be used in a fatal accident between siblings or between a child and neighbor’s child than to protect someone.  Statistics show that a gun is vastly more likely to be used to accidentally kill a relative coming home late, or a spouse getting up in the middle of the night and being mistaken for an intruder, than to protect someone.  A gun is vastly more likely to be used in a suicide or in a fit of anger to commit murder than to protect someone. The pro gun lobby paints a picture of self-defense heroics standing tall against bad guys, but the truth is that if you own a gun you are more likely to create you own tragedy than to prevent one.    

 

Now what is the reality of just getting the guns out of our hands? Most crime involving guns is criminal against criminal. If you stay away from drug dealing or out of gangs the chance of you ever seeing a gun used against you is very small.  Just getting rid of gun won’t change the “crime against criminals� factor.  These types of people don’t go to the gun shop to get their guns.  So the gun lobby is right, just getting rid of guns will result in only criminals having guns. The same goes for the lone whacko that goes on the offence against society. The only benefit of just getting rid of guns is reducing number of tragedies associated with the false sense of self defense describe above.

 

A Reasonable Stance

 

Notwithstanding these negative facts surrounding gun ownership, I believe that there is a right to own a gun.  However, no right is universal. We limit automatic weapons as we limit the ownership of grenades, missiles, and tanks. There is also a right of all people to be secure in knowing that gun owners have the skill and processes in place to avoid the tragedies listed above. 

 

We need to take the pro gun lobby up on their observation that is the owner and not the gun that creates tragedies. National standards should be established for background checks. A standard waiting period should be established during which the prospective gun owner should be required to attend gun use and safety classes. The classes should address not only the use and proper storage of a gun, but the class should involve some form of psychological observation and testing. Prospective gun owners that pass the class would receive a certificate allowing them to pick up their gun. Pro gun advocates may see this idea an invasion of their rights, but I wonder what they think about the DMV. It is harder to get a license to drive a car than to acquire a gun.

 

Finally, I would like to work with gun manufactures to create a tamper-proof ballistics based gun identification system. There has to be some way to link a bullet to a gun without having to have the bullet in one hand and the gun in the other. Ballistics fingerprinting would help law enforcement hunt down people that used a gun in their crime.

 

Copyright: Ross V. Overby; American-Ideal.com 2007 

I listened to Rush Limbaugh often during the Clinton years. Bill's behavior made him such an easy and entertaining subject. I stopped listening as the Bush years wore on and Rush could not let go of the stale topic of Bill Clinton. I also lost my interest in his unswerving support for most anything prefaced with the word “Republican”. No political party is always right and no party is filled with demons. But this editorial is not about my like or new found boredom with Rush, it is about a recent monologue of his I caught while channel surfing. And it goes like this.

The point was being made that the so-called the “whacko liberal left” places the blame for most of the world's problems on the U.S. According to Rush, the “whacko liberals” have an insatiable need to feel guilty for our prosperity. Liberals often lament that we guzzle the world's oil and minerals, so we must be to blame for the problems, or so the argument goes. Now for the key theme of his monologue –Rush professes that we don't guzzle the resources; we pay good green-backs for every resource we use. We don't steal; we ask how much and then we pull out our checkbook. Rush made the point that we are not to blame for the fact that rich oil countries keep the wealth among the sheiks who jet around the world on private 747s to sow their wild oats that can't be sewn in the Islamic world.

Are we to blame if our dollars go to about three families in a rich country? Are we to blame if our dollars get only to a dictator and his family and few friends as millions struggle? No we are not to blame, but blame is not the issue. Over the long term our security depends upon how people perceive our country. Were we to blame for how Batista, the leader of Cuba before Castro, treated his people? No. We paid good money for what Cuba had to offer. But look what our support for Batista bought us. We went to the brink of nuclear war as Castro teamed up with the Soviet Union and placed nuclear missiles less than 100 miles from our shores. In the 1960s we paid good money to Viet Nam's corrupt leaders. In the 1970s and 1980s we paid good money for what most of right wing dictators of Central America had to offer. We pay plenty to Saudi Arabia where almost half of the county is under twenty years old and is really pissed. You see, the unemployment rate in Saudi Arabia is about 30 percent. Rush failed to name any case where we paid good money to corrupt regimes and came out ahead.

Dictators and greedy monarchs don't last forever. When the corrupt and greedy recipients of our dollars fall, where will the allegiance of the people be? Their allegiance will be on the side of the leaders and groups that were instrumental in freeing them. Hamas wants to be seen as a savior, so does Hezbollah. Even al-Qaeda and any rebel group with a gun will cite our support for the status quo as the reason to support their insurrection. Our interests are not being met when our policies or our economic behavior gives individuals and groups that wish to do us harm political strength.

Our interests are not always met by paying a market price and letting the chips fall where they may. The world is a lot more complicated than a good business deal. Rush is right, there is no reason for guilt, guilt solves nothing. Justice and seeking and respect of people from all walks of life are a lot more powerful that paying a bill.

Copyright: American-Ideal.com - 2006