}

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Gun shame

Yet another mass shooting happens in America. The political extremes scream at each other and the mass of people between the two struggle to understand or take away some lessons.


But the most obvious lesson is always missed and dismissed: No one needs guns.


The right and far right in America have long perpetuated the lie that the US Constitution somehow gives people the right to carry concealed automatic weapons with armour-piercing bullets. Yes, I know most of them don’t actually say that, but it’s certainly a logical conclusion based on their rhetoric.


At a minimum, the right and far right claim that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives people the right to have guns, including handguns (the amendment has, in fact, been used to try and justify people carrying concealed guns, owning automatic weapons or armour piercing bullets).


All the Second Amendment says is this:


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.


For 200 years people have been arguing about what that means: Does it mean anyone can own a gun, or does it mean guns are only to be held in connection with “a well regulated militia”? Citizen militias are now a part of history. Their descendents, state National Guards, are basically part-time armies; the need for ordinary people to instantly form amateur armies is long past.


Incredibly, some in America are claiming the answer to gun violence is escalation: More guns and more violence. Some of them will argue that if the students had been allowed to carry hidden guns, the mass killing wouldn’t have happened. Which, of course, raises the spectre of raging gun battles as armed people shoot blindly, unsure of who or what they’re aiming at.


CNN had commentary from Aaron Cohen, whom they described as a SWAT trainer. He argued that all police should have a higher tactical level, ready to swoop in without waiting for SWAT teams. This raises the spectre of police being SWAT teams, and SWAT teams becoming heavily armed armies.


Is it any wonder that America’s image in the world is one of a land filled with gun-toting maniacs?


Gun nuts don’t care about America’s image. They say that if people don’t have guns, the government will become a communist dictatorship in which rape of grandmothers and babies will be compulsory (or something equivalent). A person would have to be a complete idiot to buy that argument.


There are plenty of democratic countries in the world in which ordinary people can’t own guns or, at least, not easily. New Zealand is one of them. Handguns are virtually unknown here. Criminals sometimes use rifles, but improvised weapons (knives, clubs, whatever) are more usual. Obviously, a knife or sawn-off shotgun can kill a person, too, but a victim’s chances are better facing a knife or club than a handgun.


The New Zealand police don’t carry guns. There’s a special unit called the Armed Offenders Squad that turns out whenever there’s a criminal with a gun. In New Zealand, “Special Weapons” are guns.


Obviously, it is possible to live peacefully in a democracy without carrying hidden handguns, but Americans won’t be experiencing such a country. The gun nuts will make sure no gun control, no matter how mild, ever happens there. And more shootings will happen.


So, the tragedy today was not that 33 people died at Virginia Tech. It also wasn’t the inevitability that something like this would happen. The tragedy is that it will happen again. Tragedy? Maybe a better word would be shame.

7 comments:

d said...

I was hoping you would address this. I had no idea where to even begin with today's tragedy. You are right, the right and far-right will never allow gun control in America (reason #264 why I'm living here). And honestly, even if there was some sort of control, I'm guessing it would be ineffective. The current government (or any possible future governments) just doesn't seem capable of that kind of administration.

Before moving here, I read that 75% of all gun deaths in New Zealand are suicide. It seems the people here are just much more creative when it comes to killing other people. And even that doesn't happen very often, and certainly not on this scale.

Finally..I note some irony: a very good friend of mine moved out of Baltimore and to VA Tech because she couldn't stop being afraid after 9/11. Fortunately, she is alive and well after today's attack.

Arthur Schenck said...

Thanks for the comment, D. I struggled a bit with this one, because I didn't want to just dump on America. But I wanted to point out the whole problem is built on a lie and it doesn't have to be that way.

I agree with you that if there were gun control it would probably be ineffective. Still, I wish they'd try.

You're right, too, about the low murder rate in NZ--when there is one, we hear it on the national evening news! The thing about suicides by gunshot is interesting, because they'd probably mainly be farmers or at least rural folk, who are more likely to have rifles.

Glad to hear your friend's okay!

lost in france said...

I couldn't agree with you more, Arthur.

Funningly enough (if that is the word), seeing d's comment, I had posted today on September 11th (http://cyberfrance.blogspot.com/2007/04/poignant.html), and that horrible event certainly wasn't stopped by US citizens holding guns.

Jason in DC said...

But there are gun laws in the U.S. The notion that there are none is completely wrong. Are they strong enough? No. Are they effective? Not completely. But if the NRA had it’s way there would be no laws at all.

The knee jerk reaction every time something like this happens is to have stronger gun laws. I’m not sure they would make any difference.

The much tougher question is why people feel compelled to do such things. Ever notice a pattern that just about all of these major shootings are done by males. (In fact I can’t think of one that hasn’t been done by a man. In these murder suicide cases does the woman every kill the boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, husband etc and then hershelf. I can’t recall one such case.) Why is that? What in the society so alienates or angers these guys? What conditioning in society makes it so these guys only know how to express or solve the pain they are suffering through anger, rage and violence. That’s a much harder question to answer. It would take lots of thinking and a very radical shift within American society (or any society for that matter). In other words, it would be really hard. And demanding more gun laws or fewer gun laws is just oh so much easier to do.

The accessibility of guns makes the ability to do something like this, killing so many people, much easier. But as I said there are much harder questions that need to be answered. Until we do that this will continue to happen.

Arthur Schenck said...

LiF: I thought your post was really good. It's amazing, really, how many small 9/11 memorials there are, including one in Christchurch (NZ), made out of steel beams from the twin towers.

Jason: There's a difference between gun laws and gun control, though perhaps I could have been clearer that's what I was meaning. America's gun laws couldn't be called gun control, except to be ironic. The fact that laws exist doesn't mean there isn't a need for laws with teeth--real gun control, not the largely meaningless stuff that exists now.

I believe that reducing the availability of guns reduces the opportunities to use them for mass murder, something you appear to think, too.

You raise a very good point about understanding what leads people to do these things (and I touch on it in today's post on the subject). I agree with you that changing laws is seized on as the easier answer, but I don't think it needs to be an either/or situation, even though I know in reality it is.

I guess what I hope is that in discussing these issues people will come to agree on trying new ways of dealing with it all, since clearly the old ways have failed.

Jason in DC said...

You are right. I’m not looking at it as an either or situation. Real gun control or looking into the mental health end of things. My concern is that only the move for gun control seems to get the attention and it needs to be on both issues.

A further problem is that national gun laws are very difficult to get passed (gee maybe that could be because of the NRA). So states do the regulating or non-regulating as the “laws” in Virginia show. With this hodgepodge of state laws, you just need to go some place where the “laws” make it very easy to get a gun.

I saw a report where law enforcement agents from New York went to Virginia undercover to see how easily they could obtain weapons. The reason is that many weapons used in crimes in New York come from Virginia.

I think gun laws need to be tightened but the underlying cause the rage in this man (and these “types” of men has to be looked at). Making it more difficult to get guns can stop the ability of someone to inflict such carnage but the mental health end of things has to be looked or these types of events will continue to happen.

Arthur Schenck said...

Yeah, I don't see tougher gun laws happening, especially in places like Virginia. I also agree that finding out more about these people is a good thing, and your post today was really good about that.