I believe in the strictest of all possible gun control.
It’s a shame what kind of insanely powerful killing machines can be bought at gun shows and private dealers throughout the country. I was once in favor of repealing the Second Amendment altogether.
I felt it best, however, to align my ideas against any airy and insipid conversationalism and root them instead in the pragmatism of a reasonably chaotic, but reliably predictable society.
Translation: Only a dope would figure that people would give up their guns.
The Second Amendment 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.”
The preamble of that sentence could be interpreted as saying that the right to bear arms does not apply to the salt-of-the-earth citizenry, but rather only well-regulated militias - in modern times, our police force and our armies.
Given historical context, however, and the invocation of “the people” in the second part, one could reasonably conclude that in those heady revolutionary days, the militia and the general populace were one and the same.
An argument I have heard time and time again, is one concerning the relatively small danger of guns. Automobiles cause far more accidental deaths in America than the accidental discharge of legally owned guns. This leads to the sarcastic proposal that cars be outlawed before guns.
This argument falls short, however, because cars and the need to be mobile are essential to our very civilization. Guns, and their ability to rip through the flesh of fellow humans at great distance, serve little purpose other than hunting animals and, the kicker, to protect against other humans with guns. We obviously cannot be trusted.
Hunting is tradition. Whether for sport or for food, guns serve their purpose well, albeit lowering the necessary skill level for hunting when compared to the era of the bow and arrow. It is when guns are taken out of the forest and into the city that we all suffer.
And when they come, they come stronger, faster and deadlier than previously imagined. Deer get the courtesy of tamer machines that we would never give each other. I’m talking about the gadgets of modern violent death, sawed-off shotguns and assault weapons.
The Federal Assault Weapons ban, which expired in 2004, has yet to be renewed. Thankfully, President-elect Barack Obama’s Web site, Change.gov, briefly included a passage that proposed not only renewing the ban but also making it permanent.
These details have since been removed. Why has it taken so long for someone to try to renew the ban? It is for no other reason than, as Obama put it succinctly on the early campaign trail, people clinging bitterly to their guns. It is the bitterness and paranoia of gun owners as a voting bloc that make politicians hesitant to legislate in a commonsense way.
It is the unreasonable assumption that because the government wants to deny you a Mac- 10 submachine gun, that your hunting rifle is the next thing to go. In fact, it’s extremely selfish and ignorant to defend the sale of a device that unloads one thousand lethal projectiles a minute as an extension of some perverse American dream.
This brings me to the attitude on the lawful use of guns in America. A recent trend has been the successful passing of Castle Laws. Castle Laws ensure that if a person invades your home (your “castle”), you are protected from prosecution if you kill that person, even if the invader is unarmed.
There are provisions which stipulate that you must have reason to believe that the home invader is attempting to commit a felony robbery or violently attack you or your family. Because guns are often owned solely for personal protection, Castle Law legislation is often tied to gun ownership laws.
In Colorado, the law earned the nickname “Make My Day Law”. This, of course, is a reference to noted fictional legal scholar Dirty Harry, portrayed by Clint Eastwood.
I believe Castle Laws are well and good, and it makes a certain reassuring sense that, whereas you have a “duty to retreat” from conflict in public spaces, your welcome mat is a proverbial line in the sand and in the eyes of the law, people trespass under pain of death.
The legislative language of Castle Laws talk only of “deadly force,” but the idea of combating bad guns with good guns is a cornerstone of American culture. You know the saying, “If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns”?
It is this fear that creates an arms race between the squirming NRA homeowners of this country and the big scary outlaws who haunt their dreams. It is this celebration of the heroic side of guns and vigilantism that allows an elderly Texas man, Joe Horn, to shoot and kill two burglars on the lawn of his neighbor’s house and get cleared of all charges.
This was not in 1848, but 2008. Some may say “Good for him” or “They had it coming.”
This Texas man’s life was not in danger, nor was the life of his neighbor, who was not home. Two men, criminals yes, though unarmed, are dead. T
he judicial system is fine with this. In the end, I believe that all this points in one direction: Gun ownership does not prevent crime, but perpetuates it. T
his is a dismal and hopeless conclusion, but it is my own. Gang members and common criminals will always have guns.
Children will continue to accidentally kill themselves with Daddy’s gun. Potential school shooters will be able to buy small arsenals with ease … a five-day waiting period before the destruction of many lives. Guns can’t be un-invented.
A day when people no longer find use for guns sounds so sadly naïve. I’ll be naïve, though, if nobody else will.
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) Do you know who said that? Charlton Heston? George W. Bush? John Rambo?
No, the Dalai Lama. And he’s right. He’s so right. And that’s too bad.
