Securing the high ground

I wrote earlier about the second amendment and why I feel it has no place in the current debate over how to handle guns in America. But since then there’s been another mass shooting (several, really, like there are every month in this country, but one in particular that’s captured the media’s attention), and I feel the need to address the fundamental arguments I hear from those who support (demand) the right to own guns, I’m writing again to make my position more clear. Gun-right advocates do have a case to make, but it’s one without morality.

The first thing they’ll say is that the constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. I took  this apart in detail, but let’s just stick to the fact that no reference to a conclusion drawn by others represents an argument on it’s own merits. Just because some people thought it was a good idea a long time ago does not make it a good idea today. You have to at least state what their argument was and why it’s still valid. That’s hard to do because we don’t really have their argument – merely a lot of conjecture on what their reasoning was. And the words they used suggest it was based on a need for a militia which holds much less sway in a world where standing armies with nuclear weapons are the norm. So let’s move on.

Gun rights advocates argue against any restrictions because they say criminals wouldn’t follow any new laws anyway. Laws don’t prevent bad people from getting guns so we shouldn’t pass any more. There are so many logical problems here. First, if laws don’t stop anyone from getting guns, why are they worried about them? Why don’t they just let the rest of us pass laws restricting guns and they can ignore them like they say they will. Let’s at least give it a try.

But let’s follow their logic a little further. If laws don’t stop criminals or crime, why do we need any? Criminals break the law by definition. So, of course, criminals will continue to break the law if you add more to them. But the reason we have laws is to indicate what is allowed and considered right and what is wrong. And we back up our laws with punishment for those who break them. Laws reduce certain acts by making them criminal. Maybe not eliminate them, but certainly reduces them. I take this to be self-evident. If you want to live in a lawless society and see how that works out, go right ahead.

But on a more important note, why do you think criminals have such easy access to guns? The answer is simply because there are so many damn guns around. The U.S. has half the private guns in the world, one for every single person (including children) in this country. Of course it’s easy for criminals to get them. And it’s the fault of all the people over all the years who have argued that we all need the right to own guns. It’s those people who want to make sure the good guys have guns who have created a system whereby it’s easy for bad guys to obtain guns. The blame lies with their culture.

But maybe it is too late. The criminals are armed and the only way to stop them is to make sure the good guys have guns too. But I really wonder about how many good guys are really good. The truth is, it’s those good guys who accidentally shoot themselves while cleaning their weapons. It’s the good guys who leave the weapon unsecure so a child finds it and hurts themselves or others. It’s the people we thought were good guys who get angry and use the weapon against their wife or partner. It’s especially the good ones who get sad at all the badness in the world and put their gun to their own head to end the pain. And even the best among us will eventually pass away and leave their stockpiles of deadly weapons to the next generation who may not be nearly as worthy. Statistically speaking, good law-abiding citizens are far more likely to hurt themselves or innocent people with their guns than they are to stop a bad guy, and eventually their weapons will find their way into the wrong hands.

But they still want their guns. Their right to have a toy, to make themselves feel safer in spite of the evidence that proves it isn’t so, is far more important to them than the lives of the innocent people who will die in a system that grants them their right. It’s incredibly selfish. It should not be the basis for how a rational society decides what is best for the population as a whole.

I do agree that it’s too late. It will take generations to get rid of the ridiculous amount of guns in the country. But I’ll still argue for a sane course of action and an end goal that makes sense. It’s not laws or regulation that will make this country safer, but a change in the mindset that weapons are the basis for peace, that everyone needs the power to kill quickly and efficiently in order to survive. There are too many models out there that prove it isn’t so. In the meantime, it would be good to know what incremental steps we can take to make things better. To start us on a path towards a society where more guns are not the solution to a problem of too many guns. The truth is, it’s really hard to know what to do. But that’s their fault as well.

The reason we don’t have much solid academic study of the problems of gun violence is that gun proponents have fought tooth and nail to prevent it. The NRA has used all its power, every politician on its payroll, to stop the government from researching how guns impact public safety. To me, the only reason they would do that is because they know all too well what the answer will be. Those who fear to face the truth are the ones who already know what it is.

And that’s the truth of it. We all really do know that guns are bad. They’re designed to kill. Their purpose is evil. While it may be necessary to have such evil weapons in the world, we should never forget that it’s an evil necessity. We should take no pride in facing that necessity. We should look to eliminate it or reduce it at every turn. If we have any morality in us, we should all strive for a world without guns. The argument that it isn’t possible is proven wrong by many of the most developed and civilized countries in the world – it would be nice if the U.S. could be part of that group.