| |
In the wake of the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, much has been said and written regarding gun violence. Emotions are high, and one of the few things being agreed upon is that such tragedies are unacceptable. The suggestions on how to prevent such crimes in the future, however, is aggravating a rift in our culture. On both sides, though, is a certain measure of fear. Whether we believe it is justified or not, the fear is real.
In its proper context, fear is a healthy thing. It is a reaction encoded into the psyches of most living creatures to promote survival. Fear is supposed to motivate us to exercise caution around danger, so that we are less likely to end up injured or dead. It's not foolish, for example, to be afraid of sticking your hand in boiling oil. Our skin is not capable of being subjected to such extremes without incurring considerable damage, and we have an instinctive fear of doing something that we know is going to hurt us.
We also have intellect, though, and the ability to examine our fears. We can analyze the aspects of something that we fear, to determine how best to address the dangers of the situation versus the needs of the moment. If I drop something into the boiling oil that must be removed immediately, fear stops me from just dipping my hand in to grab the item, and intellect prompts me to get a suitable tool to accomplish the task. When coupled together, fear and intellect can work marvelously to keep us safe while fulfilling a goal.
In the debate over gun violence, both sides share a certain fear of being helpless against a criminal threat. They approach the solution in different manners, but the fear of both is similar - facing an assailant intent on doing harm, and not having the ability to escape harm.
Those promoting stricter gun laws and/or gun bans take the approach that, if guns are difficult to get, the assailant will be far less likely to have a gun to use on victims. A violent person cannot do nearly as much harm with a knife as they could with a gun, for example, and would be easier to escape from than if he had the ability to project violence at a distance. Since many criminals obtain guns by either stealing one, or by buying a stolen gun from an illicit source, reducing the number of guns available to be stolen will thereby reduce the number available to criminals. It's a logical conclusion, and in some places where strict gun laws have been passed, such as the U.K., gun violence has been reduced.
Those promoting the preservation of private gun ownership take the approach that armed citizens are the best defense against armed criminals. An assailant with a weapon is more easily stopped by someone with like ability to respond. Gun advocates claim that armed private citizens thwart thousands of crimes every day. While I cannot attest to those statistics, I have read plenty of news reports of criminals being stopped by gun-owning average people, and many without needing to fire a shot. Here in the United States, the statistics show that areas favoring gun ownership have lower rates of violent crime, while areas with the strictest gun laws, such as Chicago and Washington D.C., have among the highest rates of violent crime. It is, therefore, easy to see how gun proponents reach their conclusions.
Statistics, however, do not always reveal a true cause and effect. We can surmise cause and effect, but the dynamics of human behavior often make it very difficult to establish a definitive answer. Would Chicago and Washington D.C. still have the high rate of violent crimes if their gun laws were amended to match those of Arizona, where a private citizen can carry a concealed weapon without a permit? Or are their gun laws so strict because they already had such a high rate of violent crime that the Government felt tighter controls were absolutely necessary? Chicago certainly has a history of some extreme criminal violence, to the point that mobsters like Al Capone are almost idolized in popular culture.
Similarly, while the U.K. has a lower rate of gun violence than the U.S. (note: the rate is lower, but there are still incidents of gun violence in the U.K.), their rate of violent crime overall is over four times that of the United States. Gun proponents point to this and declare that this is what happens when guns are taken away, while their opponents point to such statistics and declare this is why guns should be taken away. Both sides agree that people are violent. They just can't agree on what should be done about it.
I am a gun owner. I enjoy recreational target shooting, and I support the idea that private citizens should have the ability to defend themselves against crime. At the same time, I can see many of the points of both sides. I've known people that owned guns, and whose behavior left me thinking, "This person has no business owning a gun."
Part of where the fear comes in on both sides, is the idea promoted by some that it's an "all or none" proposition. The conflict over the Second Amendment and how it applies in the light of creating a safer environment for all of us is being pushed as a "any concession is a step towards defeat" by some of the most vocal on both sides. The image is that of a continuous press until the other side is forced to accept unconditional surrender.
Is that truly the case, though? Are the only two options that we either have guns so easy to obtain, that the violent have no trouble getting their hands on powerful weapons, or that no one at all is able to own a gun? I don't believe those are our only options, or that we should allow fear to drive the process in the least.
Once again, I want to try and dispel the myth that the issue is absolutely polarized, with a "no man's land" spread out between two extreme factions. There are, I believe, a majority of moderates on both sides, who would be willing to discuss and consider reasonable suggestions from the other side. What can I, as a responsible gun owner, do to help my neighbor who doesn't like guns, to feel safer? Obviously, being "in his face" about it isn't going to help him. Being loud and aggressive about my gun rights is just as likely to leave him worried that I'm going to go off the deep end and start shooting, instead of leaving him feeling that I'm concerned about his well-being.
I'd like to think that my neighbor is similarly thinking of what he can do to reassure me.
With rights come responsibilities, and we should be willing to accept those responsibilities without being compelled to do so by the Government. I believe that anyone who owns a gun should invest the time and effort into training. Ignorance is not bliss, and some of the people I alluded to earlier had no business owning a gun specifically because they behaved stupidly with one. Their careless handling either injured themselves or someone close to them. If they didn't know better than to do what they did, they shouldn't have had a gun. If they did know better and did it anyway, they should not have had a gun. Similarly, there should never, ever, be an incident report with the statement, "I was cleaning the gun and it went off." If the person was actually cleaning the gun and it went off, it means they have no idea of the proper way to clean a gun. Just as likely, though, is that they were doing something else stupid with the gun, and just don't want to admit it. Either case, they should have known better. Before someone owns a gun, they should know proper gun safety.
While I know some gun owners that would disagree with me, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to show some proficiency in safe gun handling knowledge before allowing them to buy their first gun. Yes, it would take some time, but if a buyer cannot adequately demonstrate in the store that they know gun basics, it would be best to ask them to take a course before sending them home with a firearm. This is applicable whether we're talking a basic single-shot .22 caliber plinking rifle, a shotgun for skeet shooting, a high powered hunting rifle, a revolver, or a semi-auto pistol.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have a system for gun purchases similar to the credit reporting system. If a merchant can tell in just a couple of minutes whether I'm a good risk for credit, why not a similar system for whether there's a reason to not sell me a gun? A mental health professional would not need to violate patient confidentiality to flag such a system if he or she believes a patient is a high risk for violence. Yes, there is the potential for abuse of such a system, and one whose account was flagged would need a proper avenue for appeal, but it isn't like the system we have now is perfect, either.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask gun owners to demonstrate that they understand the laws on the use of deadly force before they carry a loaded weapon, either openly or concealed. It can be very easy to think active intervention in a perceived crime is the best option, when doing so may actually subject the one intervening to criminal charges. That's part of the responsibilities that accompany the rights.
Most of all, I don't think it's unreasonable to treat those who disagree with me as being intelligent people with a difference of opinion, instead of just dismissing them as idiots. I can't control what anyone else does, and I don't expect the "other side" to venture the first olive branch in a dialogue that seeks to foment cooperation and a mutually acceptable course of action.
You see, I understand that I don't have to surrender my arms in order to lay them aside for the peace talks.
|