Another massacre and 9 more families suffering from the effects of easy access to guns. If history repeats, our elected representatives will again assume the ostrich position and do nothing.
Two weeks after 35 people were killed in a gun massacre in Tasmania, then Australian prime minister John Howard ushered in a semi-automatic weapon ban. In 1996 a massacre in a Scottish school in Dunblane killed 16 children and one teacher. The following year the private ownership of most handguns was banned in Britain. The day after the Sandy Hook massacre killed 26 in Newtown, Connecticut, demand for assault weapons exploded. One gun shop owner reported that he sold more AR-15 and AK-47 rifles in one week than he normally would sell in a year. Our preoccupation with guns has reached insane proportions. We already own 9 guns for every 10 citizens, totalling 270 million, 30% of the entire world's privately owned firearms.
We lose 31,000 family members to gun violence every year. That is approximately 85 deaths per day. By contrast Great Britain registers 42 similar deaths per year. On a per capita basis our death rate attributable to firearms is 9.0 per 100,000 population. Japan is at 0.07 and the UK at 0.22. One could legiyimately argue that the reasons behind these morbid statistics, which distinguish us from all other developed countries, is accessibility, the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association, and perhaps a residual frontier mentality.
The NRA has 4.2 million members who provide in excess of $100 million in membership fees. The organization likes to present itself as a membership organization. In reality it is a lobbying group with immense political leverage funded largely by the gun industry. It has managed to keep congress from adopting effective gun control legislation. Even after Sandy Hook its articulated positiiion has been that to combat similar massacres - and we have had dozens since then - we need more guns. Its members object to restrictions on private ownership of any type of firearm, including rocket launchers. They fiercely object to a national gun registry because they feel that this would allow the government access to information that could be used to confiscate their weapons. They object to mandating background checks when guns are acquired from anyone other than licensed gun dealers, which covers 40% of total gun sales. Their opposition always comes back to a firearm friendly interpretation of "Second Amendment rights."
The Second Amendment, adopted in 1791, was modeled on a condition found in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. In it the king was prohibited from disarming his subjects. During a very tempestuous period leading up to adopting the Bill of Rights, king JamesII, a catholic, attempted to disarm his protestant opposition. During our revolutionary period the fear of being disarmed was real, and the amendment was an understandable reaction to that fear. Since that time the confusing, convoluted language of the amendment has gone through various interpretations of the founders intent, focusing on collective versus individual rights to own firearms. The issue, for the time being, was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-4 decision in D.C. vs. Heller in 2008 when it sided with individual rights.
Although the Supreme Court decided in favor of private gun ownership, there is no reason why this right can't be reasonably regulated. The sheer magnitude of the numbers involved makes it unlikely that we can take all guns out of circulation. Besides, few would argue against ownership of guns for gaming. However, military weapons belong with the military. Private clubs could be organized where enthusiasts could go to shoot assault weapons and then leave without the guns. All dealers could be mandated to have a license to sell. Gun owners could be required to have an operating license, just like all of us who drive motor vehicles are required to have a license. A national gun registry could be inaugurated over the objection of the gun lobby. It would make things considerably easier for law enforcement. Background checks could be more exhaustive, and need to be required of anyone attempting to make a purchase, be it at a gun show, on line, or in a store. Finally, some weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devices simply don't belong in private hands.
In short, if these calamities don't prompt us to change our pre-coccupation with guns and force sensible controls, what will? How many more need to be slaughtered before we wake up and get angry enough to demand change? If not now, when? We all need to contact our elected representatives and instruct them to move the issue back to the top of the agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment