Gun Control

For years, but especially over the last month, I have thought, watched, heard, read, and talked about the subject of school shootings.  I consider the larger, more inclusive issue of "gun control" to be among the most difficult issues of our time -- and by "difficult" I mean that the issue is complicated, with no good, clear solutions or answers, and thoughtful, rational, intelligent, passionate people on various sides.

The thing that makes the more specific issue of school shootings even worse, and the reason I am reluctant to write about it, is that it involves horrible, senseless tragedy.  There is nothing I -- nor anyone else -- can say, write, or do to bring back the victims, or to lessen the overwhelming, crushing pain of the survivors and loved ones of the victims.  In a way, it seems obscene to discuss these incidents in terms of statistics, or intellectual or philosophical arguments.

In fact, I believe quite strongly that there is only ONE thing that we, as a society, can do that will definitely lessen the frequency and number of victims of future school shootings: Quit publicizing them!  Quit showing them on television, quit having national discussions about them.  That is the ONLY sure-fire way to combat them.  However, in a free society, with a free press, that is not going to happen.

So I am left to discuss the issue in mostly in terms of intellectual and philosophical arguments (I will leave the statistics to others, at least for now) -- which is NOT what the loved ones of the victims want to hear, and I cannot blame them.

As with most troubling, divisive, controversial issues, school shootings and gun violence involve a number of related and complicated philosophical issues.  One of the most basic is the issue of control.  As the human race marches forward through time, we like to believe we are achieving increasing control over the world around us.  We do not want to hear that something "just happens" -- we want to assign responsibility and blame, and we want to vow to prevent it from happening again.  In fact, I would argue that one of the more destructive forces in human nature is the need to "do something!"  Often, there is simply nothing to be done -- a fact which few of our political leaders have the courage to embrace.

The most recent school mass shooting particularly lends itself to oversimplification and false arguments.  A few days ago, I heard the President of the United States say something to the effect of, "If we can do something that might save even one life, then we must DO it!"  On the face of it, this is a compelling argument, especially when the President surrounded himself with children as he said it.  On closer examination, it is absurd.  We could save many human lives by banning automobiles, and some by banning all forms of mass transit -- planes, trains, even boats.  Every year, people are electrocuted; we could stop using electricity.  Sporting events account for deaths every year; there is no definite human "need" for sports.  And the list goes on.

I expect that those who agree with the President would counter with the argument that whereas we NEED automobiles and planes and trains and boats and electricity -- and possibly even sports -- there is no compelling "need" for the right to bear arms.  The TRUTH is that the President is NOT simply interested in the possibility of saving a single human life -- he is interested specifically in doing things that he claims may decrease the likelihood of shootings, and only by decreasing the availability of guns.

One of the problems with this discussion is that it easily leads off in many different directions, like a maze.  I COULD focus on the fact that all of the President's ideas are pure conjecture, and while many of them may sound "obvious" there is little objective, factual support for the idea that they might "save even one life".

I will instead focus on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads, "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."  There continues to be debate over the precise intentions of these words.  In recent decades, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, some attempted to argue that the term "militia" referred to government organizations such as the National Guard.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this point, with George Mason, one of the writers of the amendment, stating, “What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”  Mason also wrote, "“A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army.”  The entire POINT of the Second Amendment is for INDIVIDUALS to retain their firearms so that they might rise up against our own or foreign armies.  Incidentally, this view -- the individual right to bear arms -- has been clarified and accepted by Supreme Court decisions.

In the modern world, we do and require lots of things to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies.  We design our buildings to attempt to withstand floods, earthquakes, storms, and fires.  To prepare for and prevent fires, we install sprinkler systems and smoke detectors, and we have fire extinguishers at the ready.  Our automobiles have seat belts and air bags, and are constructed to protect us from injury in the event of a collision.  These are just a few examples.

My mother, who is 100 years old, has always scoffed at such preparations.  Her general logic is along the lines of, "I have lived in this house for over fifty years, and there has never been a fire, or an earthquake, or a tornado, and therefore there never WILL be, and it is foolish to prepare for such things.  And I have never been in a significant automobile collision where I would have needed seat belts or airbags, so there is no reason for them."  Furthermore, she has never called the police, the fire department, or an ambulance.  Perhaps there is no need for any of these things.

I must confess that I, too, have never had need of seat belts, or airbags, or smoke detectors, or fire extinguishers, yet I accept the fact that they, along with the police, fire department, and ambulance services, are all good ideas.

This is the same way that I view the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the citizens' right to bear arms.  The founders of the United States of America believed quite strongly that circumstances might arise calling for the citizens to have weapons capable of defending against foreign armies or the tyranny of our own government.  That is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  They were NOT concerned about being allowed weapons for hunting small game -- they were concerned about being able to fight against other armed humans.

So far, I have never needed to possess an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol to defend myself against tyranny, just as I have never needed seat belts or a fire extinguisher.  I suppose my mother would argue that since I have never needed such weapons, I will never need them.  Still, I accept the fact that they are all good ideas.  I view the concept of banning these weapons just as I would view the concept of banning seat belts or fire extinguishers.  All are intended to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies, and it would be morally wrong -- not to mention stupid -- to eliminate them.

Some will argue, "Wait!  Each year, innocent people are harmed by people using guns!"  I would reply that each year, innocent people are harmed by people using cars -- and cars are NOT necessary to preserve all of our freedoms, including the freedom to drive cars.  Most dangerous things are NOT necessary to preserve our freedom.  Guns ARE necessary to preserve our freedom, should the worst case arise.

Personally, I am willing to accept the possibility of stupid, needless, tragic deaths, in order that our civilized, free society might survive.

Ultimately, this is the debate, and the problem for which I see no solution.  Some of us believe that firearms are a crucial safety device, perhaps the very foundations of our rights, liberties, and our way of life -- whereas others simply scoff at this view, arguing that "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" are "used only to kill people, and are therefore unnecessary in modern, civilized, society."  Scoffing at and dismissing the views of those who disagree with you is never a fruitful way to begin a discussion, yet it is the normal, typical way for President Obama to do business.  President Obama wants us to "stand up to the gun lobby".  President Obama refuses to acknowledge that millions of Americans -- Americans who have nothing to do with the National Rifle Association, and who have no financial interest in firearms -- are simply concerned with upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, a Constitution that has nothing to do with "hunting", and everything to do with protecting individual liberty and the rights of the minority.

Perhaps the time has come that we can no longer afford to be concerned with individual liberty, when we must let the government assume control over our choices and our lives, in the interest of saving "even one life".  If that is what President Obama believes, then he should SAY what he believes -- that is, that he wishes to do away with the Second Amendment and assume additional power.  Then, and only then, can we at least begin an honest discussion.

Truth is complicated.