An article about the gun lobby in the US...
By Tom Ehrich
Killings in Aurora, CO, immediately stirred unresolved issues about gun control in America. Just as quickly, the gun lobby shouted down those concerns. One Congressman said the answer was more guns, not fewer.
I have been observing these rituals for years. Like most of our political theater, true motivations and concerns get lost in the smoke.
The Second Amendment was about enabling widely scattered citizens to defend their communities by forming militias. People remembered how the British had tried to disarm colonialists and render them compliant.
People also needed weapons for hunting. In a great and gracious act, General Grant allowed Confederate soldiers surrendering at Appomattox to keep their rifles in order to feed their families.
The militia imperative, while reasonable in 1800, seems less pertinent today, as we have employed trained police forces to protect and serve. The Federal government, like its state and city counterparts, isn't an invading force that needs to be resisted with weapons. We are a democracy. If we don't like what the government is doing, we vote them out of office. If our votes don't attain a majority, that isn't a problem we can resolve with weapons.
For a time, the gun lobby focused on hunters and sportsmen. That made sense when the weapons in question were shotguns and target pistols. Assault rifles, however, aren't about hunting or sport. Neither are machine pistols, oversized cartridges, so-called “cop killer” ammunition, Glocks or ceramic weapons capable of evading metal detectors. Those are about killing people.
Now the gun lobby focuses on fear, loathing and taking the law into one's own hands. That's about nothing more than using fear to maximize profits. It's like the craven politicians who use fear to win votes.
I find it curious that the gun lobby has such power. Congressmen don't hesitate to turn against the massive cadre of elderly by threatening Medicare, or against the majority (women) by dialing down women's rights, or against families, drivers and workers by trashing infrastructure like schools, highways, and workplace rules, or against the pleading of their own police forces who know they will be the primary target for over-the-top weaponry.
The gun lobby's sway is proof that money in politics can corrupt anyone. It's also proof that we have some confused narratives circulating about. One confused narrative is that people must defend themselves, because government is incompetent. Another is that government can't be trusted. Another is that freedom is, bottom line, about getting one's way. Another is that America is strongest when citizens are armed and ready to kill.
None of those narratives can withstand scrutiny. But they persist, because they answer some deep-seated questions that we might be barely aware of asking. Like, what does it mean to be a man when patriarchy ends? What does it mean to be white when non-white populations are growing? What does it mean to be an American when our basic institutions are profoundly corrupt and the outside world has stopped admiring us? What does it mean when a few live so large and the rest of us live so small?
These are the same questions that underlie our presidential politics -- and our candidates are answering them no better than the gun lobby is answering them. They all demonstrate a failure of ideas and imagination.
Shouting and shooting don't create better ideas, but they do fill a vacuum.
11 comments:
Not sure if the author Tom Ehrich is an Aussie but, as it happens, I agree with his sentiments.
Well, as long as you agree. . . .that is all that matters. . . ;-)
"Trust" in government or in any other institution or organization comprised of human beings is a meaningless word. Nobody in his/her right mind ever trusts unconditionally. Skepticism means thinking; it's the opposite of cynicism and paranoia.
To me, this is good advice for many things besides poker: trust everyone but cut the cards...
There is one glaring error in this editorial: Grant required all of the Confederates to stack their firearms and public property. The ones allowed to keep guns were the officers, who were permitted their sidearms and horses which they owned personally.
Before we start beating the gun control drum again, let us remember that Norway has much stricter gun control than we do, and they almost never license a person to possess a firearm for personal protection. Only hunters can obtain a permit to keep a firearm if he meets other qualifications. And yet this did not stop the Norway massacre, which was far worse than this movie theater slaughter. We should also recall that about a week before this occurred an elderly man who possessed a license to carry a concealed weapon opened fire on two armed robbers who were terrorising an internet cafe full of people. One robber was shot and the other fled. I wonder how many people would have been killed if that old man hadn't been there, and how many would have been saved at the theater if there was just one armed guard around. What this shows is that a firearm is merely a tool of its possessor. If the shooter is a sociopath, it would be better if one righteous person was armed enough to stop him. In the 20 years I spent prosecuting I came to believe that criminals, who by definition have no regard or fear of the law, will find a way to arm themselves irrespective of gun control regulations. I do not believe these horrible incidents would have been prevented by the gun laws, because the perpetrators were planners who spent a lot of time deciding how they could best go about their bloody-minded business. The best we can do for the people of Colorado is to give this guy a fair trial and execute him.
There will always be two sides to the gun control argument in the US, which I believe will never be resolved, at least not while the man who makes the gold makes the rules.
Recently in Oz, a young man went out with friends to Kings Cross. He graduated from high school only last year. As he walked along the street, talking to someone on his cell phone, a teenage sociopath stepped in front of him and king hit him for no apparent reason. The victim fell, hit his head on the pavement and died there and then. Imagine if that young punk had had a gun.
J makes valid points about the old man in the internet cafe and the difference one security guard could have made in the Colorado theater. But imagine the melee if there had been 20 old men with guns in the internet cafe, or 20 people with guns sitting in the front row of the Colorado theater.
J also makes a valid point about criminals obtaining firearms no matter what the gun laws are. But does he really believe that more guns will make the US a safer place?
Meanwhile, we're forbidding Iran to go ahead with its nuclear program, which Iran insists is for peaceful purposes.
Funny ol' world, innit.
When it comes to politicians, it seems like the gun lobby has picked up where J. Edgar Hoover left off. They know who's in bed with who.
Since nothing gonna change with the gun laws, Im a tad more curious what made this guy unravel.
Well, Jimm, since the news is reporting that this poor misunderstood creature has taken to spitting luggies at every guard who passes his cell, I would assume he is about as unraveled as was Richard Ramirez, the night stalker. Two of the people I prosecuted were executed for their capital crimes, and both heartedly deserved it. They had no feelings for other people whatsoever, and certainly felt no remorse.
Gary, since I think 20 old men with guns in one place would likely occur only at a firing range, the danger you allude to is hardly a possibility. As for Iraq, we must remember that the doctine of "mutually assured destruction" kept the world at peace throughout the Cold War. A dear friend of mine argues that Muslim extremists are unlike the Communists of Russia, in that Muslims have a mandate from heaven to murder infidels, and are more likely to use such weapons if they had them. I believe that the mullahs are just as interested in preserving their lives as the old Politburo was; they pick the ignorant suckers to wear their suicide bombs.
In short, the existence of weapons inhibits the unlawful and their governments, and will destroy the truly psychopathic.
Coopsta, I agree with you. As horrendous, horrific, insane all this is, I do not believe execution is the answer, any answer. . .to anthing.
As repulsive, repugnant, reprehensible and any other R's you care to throw in, he is a human being, certainly totally unbalanced and messed up - for/by whatever means, the reality remains WE ARE our brother's keepers, not his executioners.
And, J. . .while I admire your quality comments drawn from your vast legal and human experiences, my above comments are not intended to attempt to refute anything you've written -- and I am almost always grateful [ ;-)) ] for your commentaries -- my comment above is an expression of what I think I believe at this point. I have a long way to go yet in my ongoing educational processes.
peace. . . Justin
ho ho ho. . ..great comment/question!
J raises another interesting point when he says that people who commit atrocities have no feelings for other people, and show no remorse. Those people are missing things like empathy, sympathy and respect for the rights of others. We find it impossible to relate to them because they're not the same as we are. They don't think like we do. They're insensitive to the feelings and emotions we take for granted. They look and act like human beings, but they're not. They're incomplete,like robots. And yet the law allows them to arm themselves to the teeth.
I agree with J's point about the existence of weapons and their value as a deterrent. Nature also agrees that it's a good idea to arm all living creatures with a defense mechanism. However, as we have witnessed many times, not all creatures use weapons as a defense. And therein lies our dilemma.
The killer had empathy because he let some ppl go. This was reported on the 1st day. I think taking on the Joker's persona allowed him to justify killing.
And then there is his profile, adopted, high expectations, a loner, and shy...
Post a Comment