Circum Spective

the Gun Laws Debate

(part 2)

Regarding my support of stricter gun laws (see my previous post, the 2nd Amendment..., below this one, or see Blog Archive at bottom of page), one friend wrote:

It's unfortunate that banning guns doesn't solve the problem...check out New York City & the state of New York [guns of all sorts have been banned for decades] and then there's Massachusetts...gun ownership [guns of any sort including air rifles] have been banned for years & years. And then of course there's Ireland...in the good old days guns were also banned...they resorted to using bombs and explosive devices [much cheaper than guns and stuff is available in any pharmacy, grocery or garden center].

When the family becomes the center of society with a healthy dose of responsibility and respect taught to children, we may stand a chance. Making excuses for both parents who work being the cause of family decay is nonsense...there are too many examples of families with both parents working [and working hard] who value their children, teach them moral values, teach them about accepting responsibility for their behavior and the consequences of their choices. They don't run down to the school and inform the world that "MY child would not have done that," or "I'm going to sue you..." They don't expect the school to teach their children what should be taught at home [respect, value of life, sex education, etc.]. They teach them how to become a man and a woman of integrity and strength. It is unfortunate that these families are probably in the minority at this point, but don't use that as a cop out...use it as an example of a goal to strive for and work toward. It is very sad that people in this day and age blame everyone and everything else for their "unhappiness," whatever it may be, rather than being reflective and accepting responsibility for oneself and taking action to correct the situation.

My response to that was:

Yes. It is unfortunate that banning guns might not completely address the problem, but it is even more unfortunate, in my opinion, that so many people have simply thrown up their hands in surrender to the problem. You're right. Banning guns won't solve the problem, but I think it would be a major step in the right direction. Using individual bans in New York and Massachusetts as examples (proof?) that a nationwide ban on certain guns would fail to address the problem is not a sound argument in my opinion, because it is too easy to carry banned firearms across state lines from any of the neighboring states. Yes, I know federal borders can be fairly easily breached, too, but if the ban was in place in all fifty states, it would be quite different than having a ban in a single state (surrounded by other states with no ban). The difference in rates (from America's world leading rates) of murder and violent crime in countries where private ownership of handguns is prohibited seems to prove this point. Besides, why simply argue that it wouldn't work without even having tried it first?

I think the better opposing argument is probably an analogy to the failed 18th Amendment (prohibition against the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages). But I'm not going to spend my time making arguments opposed to my own views. The NRA is about boosting gun sales (and the myriad of paraphernalia associated with guns). The NRA is all about money, not about constitutional rights, and it is certainly not about what is good for the citizens of this country.

I'll repeat it again, because it bears repeating: You can either serve God or you can serve Mammon (money, profit, greed), but you can not serve both simultaneously. The NRA can either choose to sacrifice profit to save lives, or it can keep helping its affiliates to make money hand over fist on gun sales in this country, while continuing to buy votes in Congress and blame everything and everyone else for the obscenely high rate of gun-related crimes. Every time you choose to repeat the NRA’s clever little slogan (that guns don’t kill people; people kill people), you are choosing to make the problem even more difficult to solve, as opposed to being a part of the solution.

Here is a true statement: People with guns kill people much more often than people with steak knives kill people ... or people with box cutters kill people, or people with arsenic, or people with baseball bats ... should I continue? Guns make killing people easier, more convenient, less personal. If everyone who had ever hated to the point of wanting to murder someone had only the options of beating or stabbing that person to death, or strangling that person with his bare hands, I am fairly certain there would be many fewer murders on the books. In fact, there would probably have been many fewer attempted murders. Why? There are a number of reasons why. First: have you ever heard of a drive-by stabbing? Second: there would be far fewer 2^nd degree murders (in the heat of passion; without premeditation). 2^nd degree murders are spur of the moment, impulse killings. Pulling the trigger on a gun makes effectively translating an impulse into a murder much more likely. Third: Columbine and Virginia Tech. How many fewer people would be dead in those cases had there been a different weapon involved? Fourth: Accidental shootings. There wouldn’t be any (or almost none). Fifth: Shooting someone is a relatively impersonal act. Ask any sniper. Stabbing or beating or strangling a person to death is an intimate and gruesome act that requires a much more sustained intent. Sixth: ... Come on! How many reasons do you need to be persuaded that the NRA’s little slogan is for people who don’t take the time to really think this thing through?

No. Banning handguns and automatic assault weapons would not completely solve the problem, but it sure would improve the murder rate in this country.

[In my next post, I will address the question -- raised by another friend -- of availability and the "black market".]