Not long ago I commented on FB about a Rachel Maddow segment on "trends in mass shootings" in the USA -- I asked if what she mentions were really all of the mass shootings there had been over the past 70 years. Most people who replied ignored my question to jump in with their own personal gun agendas but a few had actual intelligent replies, questions, and ideas.
You can thank them for this post no matter how much it pisses you off.
First here is the clip from Maddow's show that I was talking about:
As a historian, as someone who considers herself to be fairly logical and rational yet capable of great empathy, I try to see all sides of an issue, often playing the Devil's Advocate -- not the movie, the rhetorical device. It may take you a while to figure out my views on any subject because of this but once I have a view, once I have my ethics and morals checked against the facts and lined up in what I believe is a non-hypocritical fashion I am very unlikely to change my mind unless you have factual information that I lack. Actual facts not selected statistics or your opinions.
The argument, it is not a debate because that implies a civilized discussion and the gun thing is not civilized in the USA, rarely is about facts on either side. For every statistic that one side pulls out, the other side discovers another one; for every story on one side there is a counter, real or not, on the other side.
The very fact that we can even talk about sides in this gun argument demonstrates the real problem with gun violence in this society: We don't give a damn about each other, not really.
You see there is no such thing as gun violence.
There is only violence.
Guns do not do violence any more than a knife, a rock, a bottle of acid, a book, or any other object or tool commits violence.
Human beings and other animals are the ones who can do violence and we do it very, very well.
Now you might think that all of this means that I'm pro-guns.
I'm not.
I'm also not anti-guns.
What I am is anti-violence.
And I say this knowing full well that a few weeks back I told you all how much of a challenge it can be for me to control my own actions when I get really angry. I take responsibility for my actions and reactions and that is what is lacking in this gun argument.
Pro-gun folks claim that adhering to laws and regulations is against their constitutional rights conveniently ignoring that the rest of us have constitutional rights that their behavior and choices may stomp all over.
So often these same folks who are screaming we can't have regulations and laws about guns often support more laws and regulations about voting, abortion, getting federal or state aid, and anything else they dislike. These same folks often tell us to not be afraid of checks at airports or the government wanting to know about the people you call or looking into your life because if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?
I find this type of hypocrisy beyond acceptable.
How about this? The laws and regulations are a way for the gun owner to accept responsibility for their right to own the guns. Making sure you do the legal thing, making sure you follow regulations demonstrates that you value the nation, the constitution, and your fellow citizens.
Now before you get misled into the "but criminals" argument, stop and think for a moment -- of course criminals won't follow the laws or regulations, they are criminals after all. DUH!
But if you aren't a criminal why can't you follow the laws, why can't you support the regulations? Isn't that what many of you would tell me when I didn't like a new abortion law or getting x-rayed at the airport?
I mean, you want the rest of us to follow all these other laws and regulations you support so why shouldn't you do the same for the laws and regulations that we support?
I think our gun laws are lacking in one specific area: education.
Before I could get a driver's license I had to take driver's ed and pass two different exams. Then as I moved to two different states I had to study their driving laws and pass their exams. I do it without complaint because it is logical to ask people to have a basic understanding of the laws and how to drive a car.
Why wouldn't it be reasonable then to require gun safety and gun usage education before you can buy one?
Beyond reasonableness of the regulations or not, the very existence of gun laws does not really address the problem of violence with guns, other weapons, or human body parts.
Laws do not magically create adherence to them and enforcement by authorities can only do so much unless you want to see every constitutional right you have completely disappear.
People obey laws for one of three reasons -- fear of punishment or belief that following them is useful or because you are raised to simply obey.
This is the problem with gun laws and violence involving guns -- people do not fear the punishments, they do not believe the laws are useful, and they believe they can do whatever they want whenever they want.
Violence happens when we lack control and when we lack empathy.
If you are out of control and you have access to a gun you are likely to use it to commit violence; if you don't have access then you are likely to use another tool or your body to commit violence.
If you don't believe that other people (or animals) are worth very much (or anything) and you have access to a gun you are likely to use it to harm others; if you don't have access to guns then you are likely to harm others in different ways.
Now some folks say that they feel safe with a gun or safer... than what? I could understand feeling safer if you are wearing armor or if you stay locked in your house or surround yourself with walls of bodyguards. A gun is not a shield, it will not prevent someone from harming you or your loved ones, it may only end that harm sooner.
Unless you intent to just randomly shoot anyone who looks at you or makes you feel unsafe (making you the violent one by the way) the gun is a way to react to violence or the threat of violence.
On September 16, 2013, a man went into the D.C. Naval Yard and shot people. Even when authorities that were trained to use guns well came, it took time and more harm was done. Some folks claim that had guns been in the building to begin with that the shooting could have been stopped... no, it may have been ended sooner but it could not have been stopped.
Stopping the gunman (his name I won't give because he doesn't deserve that kind of attention) from doing any harm had to come before he took his gun out to begin with. How could that have been accomplished? Well, the armed guards could just shoot everyone who came into the building, they could run everyone through x-rays or do cavity searches on everyone, they could even have simply refused to let anyone in because if no one is inside no violence can be committed inside.
But you see a gun isn't necessary to do harm to others. Soon after the D.C. event a different type of public violence was happening in Indianapolis that I'm betting a fair number of you haven't heard about. On September 23rd police reports about a man around Indy stabbing people started popping up on the city news stations that we watch. The attacks happened so quickly that the victims barely had time to react. Having a gun wouldn't have stopped them from being stabbed because they were shocked this happened to them in the first place and simply could not react for a few seconds while the stabber ran off.
You gun can only react as fast as you; it can only shoot as well as you, it is only a tool you use.
Sometimes we get lucky like we did yesterday (October 3, 2013) at the Capitol Hill in D.C. again when a woman rammed her car into barriers around the Capitol and then tried to drive away. No one other than the aggressor was shot but two others were injured by the car. I don't want to say more about this because details are going to continue coming out.
It isn't men who are violent. Women, teens, even children have committed incredibly violent acts with and without guns. Guns just get flashier headlines and have the potential to harm more people in a given period of time. But then so would a bomb and I don't see people screaming that they have a right to keep and carry around bombs.
The best tool we as a society have against violence begins when each baby is born. If we teach (as parents, as family, as friends, as neighbors, as cities, as states, as nation) each baby, every day from the moment of birth until what we all hope is an old-age death that violence is not acceptable and not a solution then we have a shot at stopping violence.
Guns can only shoot either start or end violence; they can't prevent violence from happening.
So don't tell me that your guns or your gun laws will prevent violence. Stop lying to yourself and to your nation. Person up! Take responsibility for ending violence from day one until the very last day of your life.
No comments:
Post a Comment