Saturday, April 21, 2007

The Right to Bear (Necessary) Arms (of Appropriate Types)

The tragic massacre of innocent students at Virginia Tech this week reminds us once again of the dark side of one of Americans' most cherished freedoms: the right, enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, to "bear arms." There will be much study and agonizing over who might have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from murdering more than 30 people before killing himself. Indeed, reports now surface of a very angry young man who had already been identified as a potential threat to others...but because he had done nothing for which he could be arrested, he continued in freedom to fester and plan his hideous end. One thing, though, is certain. Mr Cho was able to kill so many people in such a short span of time because he was able to purchase - totally legally, as was his right - powerful semiautomatic pistols.

The statement on the website of the National Rifle Association, the ultra-powerful lobby which prevents even rational discussion of the dangers of unrestricted gun ownership, simply says, "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families. We will not have further comment until all the facts are known."

It seems to me, as it must to any rational human, that the salient facts are these:

1. The Constitution gives every American citizen the right to own weapons.
2. Mr Cho purchased his weapons over the counter at a licensed gun dealer in a perfectly legal fashion.
3. Mr Cho used his legally purchased and owned weapons to carry out the worst school massacre in American history.

It's time to step back and think about this for a minute.

At the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, America was a wild and dangerous place. Americans were distrustful of over-powerful government, having just thrown off a distant king, and believed that a well-armed militia, rather than a standing army that might be abused by a ruler, was the best defender of their liberties. In addition, most Americans outside of major cities still depended for their daily meals on meat they shot themselves.

Guns were critically important.

But I submit to you that times have changed. Most Americans hunt their dinner at the local Safeway. External threats, while present, are few and remote. We are protected against those external threats by the world's most powerful Army, and against internal threats by professional police forces. Granted, the potential for abuse of power is always present, but compared to any third-world country, Americans are not threatened in a measurable way by their government and its coercive authorities.

Why, then, do we need unrestricted permission to own firearms of any type and power?

The NRA and other strong supporters of complete firearm freedom say that a person like Mr Cho, bent on massacre, will find a way to carry out his plan no matter what laws are in effect. This is true. Consider, however, the difference between 1789 and today. If Mr Cho had chosen to commit his massacre in 1789, he would have relied on cumbersome single shot weapons. He would certainly have killed one, or perhaps two or three people, but the need to reload his guns would have given potential victims the time and opportunity to fight back. Today, Mr Cho had semiautomatic weapons that fired devastating bullets as fast as he could pull the trigger, and which were fast and easy to reload. The result: he was able to kill a huge number of people in a short time, and his vicitims were unable to fight back.

Gun apologists argue that the best defense against such attacks is for everyone to own a gun so that they can fight back. But do you really feel safer knowing that everyone around you is packing heat? Do you want to contest a parking space with someone who may be willing to kill you for it if he gets mad enough? Will someone shoot the lady who ties up the 15-items-or-less lane at the supermarket with her huge cart and in-your-face attitude? It's possible.

It's time to get realistic about both the pros and the cons of the Right to Bear Arms. I have no problem with a properly trained hunter owning rifles or shotguns. I do have a problem when everyone with enough money can buy a powerful handgun that offers a fast and deadly way to settle arguments.

Let's have the debate. And let's stop worshipping at the festooned altar of the Second Amendment. Keep the right to bear arms. Reconsider the types of arms that can be borne, and by whom.

We just may be able to prevent the next Columbine or Virginia Tech.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

3.

No comments: