Gun control is a controversial argument starter. Many Americans have
guns that have never misbehaved and therefore see no need to discipline those
inanimate objects with great restrictions on their rights of association. Such
gun owners rightly perceive that “gun control” legislation is
really “gun owner control”.
So, let’s start with both the owners and non-owners admitting to
this simple truth – Gun do not need to be controlled; it is the users of
guns that are the targets of our concern.
There exist many laws about what an individual is not permitted to do
with a gun. One may not assault or kill people. One may not
intimidate to rob or coerce people. One may not damage public or other
persons’ property. But with a gun, one can do any of these activities. The existence of these
laws is to define a prohibition and the consequence (penalty) for breaching
that prohibition. The deterrent impact in knowing that some action is illegal
does not always prevent the criminal act from being committed. In our shared
experience indeed, there are nearly 300,000 instances each year of guns being
used in US to commit these violent forbidden acts. There are likely more
crimes than these recorded murders, assaults, and robberies, but within these
reported crimes, one in thirty criminal uses of a gun apparently results in a
homicide.
As numerous crime dramas have taught us, crime happens because of motive,
means, and opportunity. Laws prohibiting the various uses of
guns work to counter-balance the motives of the criminal (with the perception
of penalty to offset (illegal) gain) with a minor effect on the choice of means
(i.e. if it was legal to poison a person but not to shoot him, some murderers
might change their weapon (although perhaps not a mugger)). “Gun owner
control laws” seek to diminish the opportunity for criminals to commit
their intended offenses. The ease with which an available loaded gun may be
employed to commit criminal acts (versus, say, bare knuckles as the weapon) is
a great equalizer of the opportunity for more people to do so if so motivated.
Some people argue that it is the imbalance between the armed and
unarmed citizens which is the real source of the problems of gun violence in
our society. That is, if all persons were armed with the easily used weapons
of death and destruction, the advantage for the potential assailant would be
decreased. My early childhood education in cinematic Westerns suggests that
the trained gunslinger might still outdraw the farmer (and the body-armored,
semi-automatic armed bank robbers might feel sufficiently confident against a
lobby of bank customers with pocket derringers). Such gun owner rules requiring
more people to carry guns do not seek to lower opportunity, but offer the prospect
of increasing the counter-balance to motive in the face of ubiquitous defense
and reprisal amongst the potential victims. With the increase in mutual
annihilation at the scene of crimes, we might indeed see a decrease in costly
judicial proceedings (and corrections housing and supervision) against the
deceased criminals not persuaded by this increased risk.
But perhaps lost in the solutions of the escalation of gun ownership as
a deterrent on criminal motivation is the fact that 55% of gun deaths in the US
are suicides (and another 5% are unmotivated accidents). There are few, if
any, documented instances of a suicidal assailant being deterred by his victim
also being armed. Perhaps, as a society, we believe that the suicide victim
“was asking for it” and so deserves his/her fate (and that self-inflicted
gunshots are a quicker and more certain means compared to more resuscitatable
methods that might be used). In the absence of guns, we might reason, those
are 12,000-16,000 lost souls amongst us who would find those other means to
their ends.
So, perhaps our problem is only that 3 Americans out of every
100,000 are murdered by guns each year (and 30 times that number are assaulted
and/or robbed), and not the 4 Americans who die by their own action or by
accident. Motor vehicles kill over four times that many (usually accidentally),
we are told, and there is no clamor to restrict their ownership. Heart disease
kills 60 times as many and yet there is no campaign to remove these killers
from everyone’s chest.
But, before we rush to arm our toddlers, perhaps we should consider
what the other options are to gun owner control: (2) lower the availability of
guns, or (3) do nothing (i.e. learn to live with the problem at its current
“minor” effects amongst the myriad of other risks we survive (or
not) each day). While the latter option is the most likely outcome of the
prolonged debates which will be occurring, let’s examine the reduction of
availability strategy.
How may guns be made less available
(or useful)? To whom should guns be less available?
Underlying those questions is the fundamental assumption that
“guns should be available (if limited perhaps).” While it may not
be unique in its legal policies around gun (weapon) ownership, the Constitution
of the United States of America defines an undeniable right of its citizens to
keep and bear arms. The one explicitly stated purpose for citizens to be armed
is “the security of a free state.” While the amendment suggests
that a well-regulated militia is necessary to achieve this purpose, it is
understood that the manning of a militia (in the framework of the society of
the Founders) was from the individual private citizen drawn into service as
needed. Such a citizen would return to his business when the need passed.
As a matter of history, the original version proposed for the Second
Amendment contained a phrase suggesting it was the expectation that every
citizen would be armed and ready to serve in the militia unless a
“religiously scrupulous” person objected to rendering “military
service in person.” That clause was stricken from the draft submitted
for ratification, leaving the restriction upon the Government not to be allowed
to infringe (reduce) the rights to arms. The Government was not prevented from
raising the requirement of gun ownership (as the NRA and others may today be
proposing). Indeed, only a few months after the ratification of the 2nd
Amendment, the US Congress enacted a law that required every white male between
18 and 45 to enroll in the militia and bring his own musket, flintlock, or
rifle and ammunition.
Thus, growing out of a culture of self-reliance, parochial
organization, and even a bit of sanctioned rebellion, we have been placed in
our current position by the thinking of our 18th century Founders.
They allowed the possibility that the nation and society may change and thus
need new structure and rules. One method was in the forceful resistance of its
citizens to the tyranny of its government. But the other was in the peaceful
and deliberative process of enacting and amending these rules.
Ask yourself
– if the Second Amendment was proposed today, would it be ratified?
If you believe the answer is No, then the clear action required is to Repeal the Second Amendment. Or amend
it to 21st century standards of technology, society, and culture.
What does the necessity of a militia to maintain security mean in our
day? We now do have fulltime professional armies and police forces doing the
duties 24/7 that the old militias were called upon in such emergencies to
perform. The standing forces maintain sufficient arms in their controlled
arsenals to equip any volunteer or draftee called into auxiliary service. The
citizen does not need to park a tank (or jet fighter) in his driveway to assist
in the national defense. He does not need a semi-automatic to help direct
traffic at a rock concert. The militias (and their private arms) that might be
required are those to oppose government, not to assist it. Do we as a nation
still believe in the rights of private militias like the KKK, Hell’s
Angels, and deep-woods survivalists to prepare to fight locally against
oppression by our enacted laws? The Constitution/2nd Amendment, as
is, seemingly states that such “gun clubs” are a necessity for our
freedom – does the vast majority of us believe that now?
Or should the 2nd Amendment be amended to state the more
restricted and modern purpose for keeping household weapons? Recreation
– sports, hunting, and collector’s hobbies. Law enforcement and
military defense is no longer the province of the private citizen – those
are the regulated and controlled business of governments, local, state, and
national. Perhaps, under the revised 2nd Amendment, anyone may own
a gun, but it may only be carried outside the home (or designated shooting and
hunting establishments/locales) when unloaded and/or disabled from use without
special government license and permission. Carrying a concealed weapon
(without regulated permission) is always an offense as is carrying a loaded or
enabled firearm. Those with criminal intent may be no less motivated than
before, but their opportunity to get weapons to the scene of their crimes will
be limited by the vigilance of those around them. We do not need to wait to
see if the person carrying an AK-47 actually shoots before the police can
intervene to ensure there is no ability to fire the weapon.
But, if you believe the answer is Yes, the 2nd Amendment
would be ratified today, then let’s give it an in-depth reading to
understand what the 21st century voter has approved.
“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.”
We acknowledge and uphold the right to arms in the context of
“well-regulated militia being necessary”. In the 21st
century, we do not understand “regulated” to mean “drilled to
march in regular columns.” To us, regulations are rules and laws and a
well-regulated industry has such guidelines and restrictions on operations from
top to bottom. The Constitution, Article I Section 8 ascribed the regulation
of militia to State authorities within the disciplines provided by
Congress. A modern vote to ratify this amendment means the individual private
citizen has the non-infringeable right to arms if he/she operates within the
regulations of the State militia. There is not a restriction on the Government
to control gun ownership outside of the citizen’s participation and
adherence to the regulation of the State militia. There is no granted power to
form, recruit, and train private militias in the Constitution, no matter
how well-regulated. If you think that there should be – Amend the Second Amendment. Drop the
introductory phrase to allow citizens to have any weapons they want for any
purpose. Or add language changing Article I to permit extra-governmental
militia to be formed. But, until the Amendment is modified, acknowledge the
responsibility of the State governments to impose regulations (within the
context of militia membership rules) on who may own (and register) what and how
they may keep, carry, and use firearms. Enroll in your local State militia and
pledge to abide by their regulations.
So, let’s put it to a good, old-fashioned American vote.
Let’s propose two amendments – one to reaffirm the Second
Amendment as written by our Founders and another to repeal it (and
perhaps replace it with a more modern understanding of what American society
wants in its nation and neighborhoods). Either outcome might give us the
ammunition to solve this problem.
