I am not from the U.S.A.
You may say that this invalidates any opinion I might have about the (most recent) mass shooting in the USA.
I am, however, a human being whose heart is full of sorrow for the parents, siblings, family, friends, teachers and neighbours of these latest victims of gun violence. To anyone who may have been impacted by this - or any other mass shootings - please know that this modern world is just a village and we, your neighbours, feel for you. Our hearts break for your loss.
I sincerely hope that, in some small way, my observations will prompt a sincere effort to find common ground in addressing the tragic phenomenon of the mass shootings, which are wreaking havoc in US society.
Before the gun lobby starts screaming that I am “anti- American”, let me state that I deny this.
This is not about being ‘anti’ anything. This is about being pro children being able to go to school without gaining combat experience and pro children having their parents come home from work alive.
There is nothing “anti American” about that.
I am a huge fan of the American founding fathers, and of the vision and ideals that they promulgated.
I am NOT a fan of governmental interference in my life. As a rule, I would like (a lot) less regulation in my life and (much much) more oversight of the government’s actions.
That said, I cannot and will not endorse the rampant violence that is becoming the norm in American society. I cannot sit quietly by and accept the willful dismissal, by certain sectors, of any attempt to bring order to this chaos.
None of us want more rules in our lives, however it is important that this issue is viewed not as what works for us as individuals, but what is necessary for us as a people.
To find an immediate solution, (and heaven knows that an immediate solution is essential), there may have to be compromise on both sides.
It is in that spirit that I write this.
In the wake of this tragedy, it seems an appropriate moment to address some of the fallacies presented as fact and to shed light on facts that many commercial and political interests would probably prefer to keep in the dark.
The purpose of this piece is to present a practical, pragmatic, perspective, not a theoretical or ideological argument.
America, something has to change. For too long you have had the same petty propaganda trotted out whenever a mass shooting tragedy has occurred. The scripted condolences, the shock and awe, and sadness and tears, and silence and memorials, and listening sessions and town halls, and, and, and.
In the interests of trying to find some practical common ground, I am not going to suggest that weapons be banned. That is the obvious solution, but it is an argument that always devolves into ideological debate and this is about finding a workable solution. If I proposed banning all guns, I would be accused of trying to undermine your Constitutional rights (specifically the 2nd Amendment).
Here are several of the major arguments and stumbling blocks that gun owners and lobby groups present whenever the issue of safety arises.
The argument: “It’s my constitutional (2nd amendment) right to bear arms”
I am not going to debate the intent, or meaning, or application of the 2nd amendment. The two sides are diametrically opposed and this would not lead to a meaningful or practical discourse. There be dragons!
Let’s continue to seek common ground and review the 2nd amendment from a purely practical perspective.
OK … Let’s start with the aforementioned ‘2nd Amendment’, which states;
“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.”
This amendment gives “the people" (i.e. citizens) the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, “the people” have the right to drive cars and fly planes too. It does not, however, mean they are allowed to do so without being tested to assess their safety and competence. The right to drive or fly is completely dependent on demonstrating competence and gaining the requisite licenses.
Without earning those licenses, there is no way to know whether you have the skills and expertise to use a motor vehicle, or a plane, safely.
No-one argues that it is unreasonable to ensure that people have proven their competence and safety before driving or flying, so why should it be any different with firearms?
If there was mandatory firearms licensing, then you would still have the inalienable right to use them, but only after you have proven your responsibility with them.
If you were found to be mentally or physically unfit to use a vehicle, or incompetent when in charge of your vehicle, then your license will be denied, or revoked. This is for the safety of the community in which you live.
Would you allow your children to be driven on a school bus by an unlicensed driver? Would you allow your spouse, or your parents, to be flown by an uncertified pilot? In either instance, you would be exposing your loved ones to the potential for injury and death.
Why then, is it OK to have your family walking, working, and living amongst people who have not proven to anyone that they can be responsible with a firearm? An instrument which, unlike a car or plane, is primarily designed to kill.
A license, in no way diminishes your right to bear arms. Licensing simply means that you will have to meet a minimum standard of proficiency and safety before being able to exercise that right.
The argument: The 2nd Amendment is about the constitution and the constitution cannot be changed!
Actually, no.
The Constitution is the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is an addition (i.e. a change) to the original constitution.
The very law that gun lobbyists insist is immutable is actually proof, in and of itself, that the Constitution is a living breathing document that can, indeed, be changed.
Don’t take my word for it, though. Thomas Jefferson was one of the founding fathers. Many would argue that he was the main driver behind the framework of the Constitution. He is certainly quoted (and misquoted) regularly by the gun lobby.
He said:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
That’s right America. One of your most famous founding fathers had the foresight to address exactly this type of problem long in advance of it being required. He stated that, for the right reasons, he had no issue with changing the constitution.
It is often argued that the founding fathers had no way of foreseeing the technology that we would have to address. Well, as this quote demonstrates, they clearly did foresee it, and they said, “…But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind…”
Surely the horrific rise in mass shootings that have resulted from cheaper, more easily accessed, and more technologically efficient weaponry meet those criteria for legal reconsideration?
The argument: "I don’t care; the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct. You cannot change it.
Really?
If that is your position then you are far too late to complain. There are a multitude of ways that the 2nd amendment has already been compromised.
As we have seen (above), the 2nd amendment gives “…the people…” (i.e. every citizen) the right to bear arms and “…that right shall not be infringed…”
What about “the people” with a criminal record? Are they allowed firearms? Why not? They are citizens too.
What about “the people” who are actually currently incarcerated? Their incarceration does not make them non-citizens.
These examples may sound ridiculous, but, by the letter of the law, the 2nd amendment should also give them a right to bear arms “…that shall not be infringed…” and yet it is. There is no provision in that amendment to exclude any citizen, so why has their right to bear arms been infringed?
In addition, what arms are you allowed to bear? Can you own a missile? Can you own a fully functioning tank? Why not a B52 or even your own nuclear warhead?
There is no provision in the 2nd amendment to exclude any particular weaponry, so why can’t you own your weapon of choice?
The law has had to adapt to (and I will quote Thomas Jefferson again) “…the progress of the human mind…”
This amendment is not sacrosanct and has not been for centuries. Why then, should it not be amended to protect your own society in the modern age.
The argument "But the right to bear arms is about hunting!"
Not really.
No-one relies on that argument anymore.
Nonetheless, we will address this very simply.
If you need an assault rifle, with a military magazine and a bump stock, to hunt game then you had better like hamburger. There won’t be a lot of steak left when you have finished riddling your chosen prey with tens of rounds of rapid fire ammunition.
Further to this, if your skills with a firearm are so limited that you require an assault rifle and multiple rounds to hit your target, you are exactly the sort of person who needs to be trained in correct firearm use. You do not need an assault rifle. You need shooting lessons!
Lastly, how would being licensed stop you from hunting? Simply put, it would not.
The argument: "Actually the 2nd Amendment is all about giving us the ability to defend ourselves from the tyranny of government!"
What!?
Is this a serious proposition in today’s world?
Whatever the original intent of the 2nd amendment, time has marched on.
If the Government of the U.S.A. chooses to be tyrannical in the 21st century, there is not a thing that you will be able to do about it.
All the assault rifles and handguns in the world will not help you.
A tyrannical government will act with no regard for the lives of any resistance.
It there is one of you, or there are 10 of you, or a hundred of you, the armed forces and the law enforcement agencies would not even notice your presence. They could go over you like a speed hump. The public simply do not have the resources or the munitions to compete with them.
If there are a thousand of you, or ten thousand of you, or a hundred thousand of you, they would not even need to get dressed for the occasion. They can launch on you from a thousand miles away and you will not even hear the explosion. Your assault weapons will not concern them for a second. You and your weaponry will be nothing more than a hole in the ground where the missiles hit.
To believe, for even a heartbeat, that massed individuals could violently resist the might of the US military in the modern age is laughable.
Anyway, go to your local law enforcement agency right now and tell them that the reason you own guns is to fight against the government in the event that they become tyrannical. I hope orange jumpsuits are the fashion look you were aiming for because law enforcement personnel do not react well to people threatening violence against the government.
The U.S.A. claims to be the land of the free; the greatest democracy in the world. If you need to take up arms against your own government, there are far greater problems than any weapon is going to solve. If you really believe that your government could become tyrannical, you need to be actively working, through your electoral system, to create a better system of government now. That is not something that will never be achieved at gunpoint.
We have shown above that the 2nd amendment need not be undermined to achieve greater gun control. The intent of the founding fathers does not need to be compromised to make schools and other areas of society safer places and the rights of the law abiding individual do not have to be compromised in any practical way.
In the second and final part of this piece, we will explore some of the proposals that have been presented by the current administration in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting. We will explain why they are not practical and why simple registration and licensing could be far more effective.