Illustration courtesy of goboxy.com
“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.” (Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States)
“When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” (Bible, Book of Matthew, Chapter 2. There’s nothing modern about killing children.)
We don’t much like guns and we don’t have any. Many of our friends, though, do like guns and do have them. These friends fall into three categories: hunters, who keep their rifles and ammunition locked up in gun cabinets; target-shooters, who also keep their weapons under lock and key; and those who keep weapons for self-defense. Presumably these later keep their weapons loaded, locked and close at hand. The reason I don’t like guns and don’t want one anywhere near me is I’m afraid I might use it, against someone innocent, someone guilty, or on a really bad day, myself.
Gun ownership in the U.S. is an incredibly complex issue. Exactly what the Second Amendment, quoted above, means has been hotly debated pretty much since it was adopted (you can read about Second Amendment cases that the Supreme Court has heard here, earlier Second Amendment cases seem to have had more to do with States versus Federal Rights rather than the right to bear arms per se). In any case, so far the judges have found in favor of the interpretation that private citizens have the right to own, keep at home, and use pretty much any kind of gun. Forty-nine states have laws which allow carrying concealed weapons of varying types.
As we are all too sadly aware in these days, there are plenty of guns to go around. The best estimate I could find on various web-sites was about 300,000,000 or more guns in the U.S., which works out to almost one for every man, woman and child in the country. The following chart offers lots of interesting gun statistics, including the most obvious: that the US has more guns per capita than any other country in the world. Italy, in comparison, has about ten guns for every one hundred people. In many parts of the world there are fewer than ten guns per hundred citizens.
I know – it’s teeny. If you click on it it will be larger, and if you want to see it in much larger format, click here. The graph on the right show people in favor of gun control (white line) and those against it (black like). The number of Americans against gun control in the U.S. has been growing in the last few decades.
There is no end of data available about gun ownership and use in the U.S. The question we all must face, and answer, in the days ahead is this: how can we keep guns out of the hands of people who will abuse them, without abrogating the rights of those who use them responsibly? Regulation has been a joke up to now. I’m adding my voice to the growing chorus saying enough is enough. The precious right of all of us to carry a weapon (assuming the Constitution gives us that right, and I’m not convinced that was the framers’ intention) is not worth the lives of the twenty little six- and seven-year-olds and six adults who were gunned down in school in Newtown last week. It just isn’t. Let the guns be held in militia headquarters and if you want to go hunting or target shooting, go check one out.
I hear my friends howling that they have the absolute right to protect their loved ones. But I have to ask, is your right to protect your family worth the lives of all the children who have been slaughtered in the spate of school shootings over the past years? Have you ever actually needed or used your gun for self-protection?
It is such a can of worms. 95% of gun owners are probably responsible and careful. The people we know are obsessively careful with their weapons. But the havoc wreaked by the other 5% in gang shootings, murders, and rampages ruins it for everyone else. The number of people killed by accident by guns is astonishing (680 in 2008) and again, it is frequently the children who suffer. According to The Survivor’s Club, every day five children in the U.S. are injured or killed by handguns.
I wish there were an easy answer, but there so clearly isn’t. And I wish a rational and calm discussion could take place, but I think that’s unlikely as well. People who have guns become enraged at the idea of having to give them up (being someone who has gotten on very well for many years without a gun I have to wonder why) and people who want gun control are equally emotional, vituperative and accusatory. Anti-control voices tell us there are so many guns already in circulation that limiting their purchase or ownership now would be next to useless in stemming the violence, that we would be removing guns from the law-abiding while the crooks and nut-cases would still have access to theirs. That may be true, but somehow it would at least feel like a start.
Can we not all work together to keep guns out of the hands of those who will misuse them? It shouldn’t be impossible to identify those individuals. If you haven’t read “I am Adam Lanza’s Mother” you can do so here for an idea where we could start. It would be nice to think we have evolved, at least a little, since the days of Herrod.
An Ex-Expatriate 
I read the comments to Fern’s blog article and Cornvillenutmeg’s article on guns and the recent slaughter of innocents in Connecticut and I keep asking, why are we a country that resorts to violence as recourse to personal hurt? frustration? madness? goal accomplishment? more frequently than any other “enlightened” nation on earth?
Is it our pioneer past that placed the adventuresome out in the middle of nowhere under threat of attack form the persons from whom they were stealing land? Is it the subsequent civilization they then set up that gave rise to both criminal opportunism and spotty law enforcement out in the wilds? Is it the stream of popular entertainment, from radio to video games, that upped the ante and brought the Wild West, gangsters, cops and robbers, Postal 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_2), into our homes? Is it the nauseating concept of exceptionalism that holds much of our society in thrall and requires us to enter or to start wars around the globe? Is it the resulting glorification of militarism that induces the concept of force as a solution? Is it the fact that such a large percentage of our society has either been in military service or been close to it, and that, therefore, gives us an intimate appreciation of weapons? Are we such a dysfunctional country, with extreme divisions of wealth, opportunity, nationality, education, and (gulp) aspirations that insanity and its near cousin, deep dissatisfaction, nurture aggression as a solution? Anyone out there—why are we so different from all of the rest of the so-called developed countries?
One usually starts in formulating a solution by taking a problem apart and analyzing it. But, I truly don’t think that we can solve this one even if we could somehow break the inscrutable code and understand the deep currents of violence within us. The issue of slavery comes to mind as equal in complexity. It was solved—by direct governmental confrontation that led to war. The Gun Question is too well-rooted, too established; the division between those who want to ban private ownership of firearms and those who want easy access to them is intractable; both sides have sound, logical arguments. And the proponents of gun ownership probably hold more political clout than their adversaries. Unfortunately, only the arguments of this group have been tested. And, I fear, so it will remain. Our elected officials, on both sides, have to make much noise after the recent events, will probably even pass some sort of legislation that gives the impression of tackling the problem but that will, alas!, make the situation only worse by deepening the existing division.
The available statistics involved with firearm use for self- family- property-defense verses the use of guns in committing crimes are dizzingly confusing. Yet, are not some of the positions of the proponents of free firearm access suspect? Recently, some have stated that, should gun ownership by private citizens be banned, even restricted, that we would bring upon ourselves the tactics of Hitler’s Germany with storm troopers breaking down doors. Haven’t we established and used for decades with success the legal process by which if someone is reliably suspected of breaking the law that a search warrant is issued by competent authority?
Then yesterday the National Rifle Association stated that armed guards should be posted in the schools. Now, unless the NRA can somehow establish a non-governmental private militia to do this work, will these guards not become another type of police force under control of some government, be it state or national? How does National Student Defense Force sound? They can wear jackboots. Maybe caps with high, shiny bills. Striking insignia. Heh! This is going to cost us tax monery! Does not the NRA and those who support it abhor the presence, and the associated costs, of government restriction over our “freedoms”?
I don’t see the phrase “well organized miltia” mentioned. But I think we should think more about Herod – read “The Gov’t. – and his/its fear of losing power. Our United States began as a loosely linked group of like minded individuals and many believe it should so remain. The threat of centralized power, loss of freedoms, will ultimately result in a Syria like result. My feeling is we should get rid of the culture of violence, the influence of violence oriented games and movies on young minds and real, rather than surrogate, parents. Guns are just a symptom of violence, as are dynamite, fertilizer, AIDS used as a weapon, and blah, blah blah. There are even those who will believe the children are now in a better place. Young boys generally like things that explode, make loud noises and express superiority over their surroundings. The killing video games is the next step – except no one gets hurt, no consequencies – just restart and your alive, ready to kill again. A twisted mind can take it from there. ’nuff said.
So I’m anonymous after all is said and done.
Not to anyone who can read your email address! And not on this comment. Go figure.
The comments here all seem to have a common thread, so we do have some common ground – that thread being that a big part of the problem is the prevalence of violence in our culture. If we didn’t surround our children with images and games centered on violence, perhaps we could begin to see some change in that culture. It would be nice to try…
By our mentally ill you shall know us. They discern the society they live in and some of them act on it. Let’s face it, we are a violent society. We go to war more than other countries, we still have capitol punishment, we watch it on tv and in movies as entertainment, we are fascinated by it on the news, we play violent video games. Gun control is nice, but we must individually and collectively reject violence to make a difference. Try not to watch it, don’t let your kids act it out, reproach your friends when they use violent metaphors, and speak up publicly when you can.
You and Pidge have the same good idea – individual responsibility. It’s hard to avoid images of violence – though I must say we don’t go to movies any more. Identifying and serving the mentally ill would be a great start – it would benefit us all.
Farfalle, thank you for a thoughtful, measured and well researched discussion of an extremely divisive issue that has fostered a rich discussion here. From my perspective, the underlying issue is the acceptance of violence that permeates the American culture. I’m not convinced changing gun laws will do much – we need to face our own darkness, stop projecting it out onto others and change ourselves and our culture. I’m horrified by the daily violence in films, print and on TV – every kind of violence from verbal to physical – and it seems to be accepted as common place, even “normal.” The US has been at war and honoring the military fairly consistently for a few hundred years. We’re currently sending drones into civilian centers and accepting the “collateral” killing of innocents. In such an environment, why do we expect anything other than violence at home? It’s heartbreaking and I have no idea how it can be resolved other than by each individual taking responsibility for becoming peaceful and refusing to take part in violence on any level.
It is a lively discussion for sure. You’re even more of an optimist than I; but if we were to become peaceful, one at a time, until we all were… wouldn’t that be great? Seems to me, though, that some people thrive on violence. And, as you say, it permeates our culture.
Ah, the Committee. To believe in even the possibility of The Committee on Gun Ownership, I’d first have to hear from anyone who had ever served on any committee that was composed only of intelligent, rational, dispassionate, disinterested, and reasonable people. Certainly I have never found myself part of such a committee.
I believe it’s called a Committee-of-One! Actually, I found my Board at the Library to be very effective, but it was only seven or nine people. Any more than that and things might have gotten out of hand (i.e. not gone my way).
I live in rural Vermont. I have owned a .38 caliber police special revolver for about 25 years. It was given to me by my husband’s friend who was a gun enthusiast and who thought I could use some sort of protection when my husband traveled and I was alone out in the boonies, and after two terrifying scenarios on the roads of Vermont. (I am a symphony musician in an orchestra that takes its music all over the state and I have often found myself on the road alone very late at night in addition to trips home in the wee hours after working evening RN shifts at the hospital in Middlebury). After the second incidence of late night terror, I accepted that gun and learned how to shoot it. I did this because during the unfolding of that encounter I decided that, given the choice between passive victim and active resister, I chose the latter. I suspect that merely seeing a woman with a gun pointed toward them would have thoroughly discouraged the individuals involved. In any case, I felt that I would be able to use a weapon to save my life.
The threat of those events has worn off and I no longer travel with a weapon, nor has subsequent history given me a reason to think I need to. I used it once against a threat – the neighborhood children came to my house looking for my husband when a very sick and possibly rabid woodchuck was in their driveway. As the man of the house was not home, I took the responsibility of dispatching it.
Even though I have moved to a house with a paved road at the end of its driveway, I am now a widow and enjoy the wonders and threats of proximity to deep forest. I know that persons looking for criminal opportunities traverse my paved road (per the police reports) as the quest for drug money increases even in the heart of Vermont. I have grandchildren, and I would never dream of exposing them to my gun or the awareness that I have one. That being said, that hidden weapon still gives me a sense that I have some ability to avoid becoming a victim.
The greater problem is our abdication of responsibility to effectively treat the sufferers of mental health disorders in whose hands our very available gun inventory can wreak havoc. If you read the article “I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother” referred to in the blog, you will have a keen understanding of why the availability of weapons is only one aspect of the problem, and not the most important one.
I love this discussion because a) it is civil b) it is intelligent and c) it presents aspects of the issue that are foreign to the way I’ve always thought – which does not mean I don’t see their merit. I do. It’s interesting that the commentor from Croatia (via Italy and perhaps Great Britain, if I’m not mistaken) has such a different point of view, Britain being a place where, until relatively recently, even the police were unarmed, and Italy being a place where private ownership of anything other than a hunting gun is most unusual. Hilary, if having a gun gives you a measure of security it’s worth having I suppose – as long as it’s in a place where it would do you some good if someone burst into the house while at the same time being out of reach of curious little hands – and I’m sure it is. I didn’t know about your scary incidents and would really like to hear more about them. And I certainly have no quibble with hunting or with dispatching rabid animals. You put your finger on the crux of the matter – being able to identify those individuals who really shouldn’t have guns. Jim, I find your comments really compelling, especially vis a vis the tragedies visited on children (and adults) in so many other ways on a daily basis. Speedy asked, when I was being so sad about Sandy Hook, what the difference was between that and, say, a commuter plane going down; both take innocent lives in number. I think it’s that the event at Sandy Hook was in a school where children are meant to be nurtured and to grow instead of the opposite, and that the children who died were so adorable and so young. How can one not be distressed? As to your scenario if guns were better regulated, though – I think it’s a bit dramatic. We as a society have agreed to so many regulations on unfettered liberty so as to avoid complete chaos and anarchy – not buying liquor before a certain age, drivers’ licenses, paying taxes, driving on the right side of the road – all things we unthinkingly do, because to do so keeps society’s gears oiled. I’m enough of a realist to know that there will not be any meaningful change in the way guns are viewed in the U.S., nor will there be any change in the uses to which they’re put; but I’m enough of a dreamer to wish that there could be. I love our liberties as much as you do, though I don’t equate gun ownership with liberty. I think I would feel just fine about guns if those of us commenting here could be the committee who got to decide who could have them!
It would be nice to think we have evolved since the days of Herod, and in fact we have, in many parts of the world. But then there are those parts of the world, where children are routinely slaughtered – and I use that term advisedly – with people using guns, but also by suicide bombers, IEDs, landmines newly planted or left over from a past war, machetes, baseball bats, poison gas, swords, knives, AIDS (and, yes, I do mean that; see The Lion Sleeps Tonight by Rian Malan). Those children, innocent as all children are, ought not to have died, nor should the ones who will die at a far more alarming rate than the 1.8 a day who died of gunshots wounds in 2008 in the US; but they will, as will innocent women and men here and elsewhere. Nothing, save a Gestapo like effort wherein homes are searched and weapons are confiscated will change that.
So let’s say this happens: let’s say the Federal Government passes legislation, and each of the fifty states and District of Columbia follows suit, that forbids the ownership of guns (except, of course, by the military and police which would suggest that guns will continue to be manufactured and paid for the taxes off all of us whether we are opposed morally to the existence of guns or not). People being people, not all will line up meekly to turn in their guns thus necessitating the passing of laws permitting the invasion of homes for the purpose of confiscating weapons. Whether we call those who make those raids – best carried out in the middle of the night when most people are at home and thereby can be encouraged to reveal the hiding places where they have stored their guns – Gestapo or SWAT or ATF or NKVD or Special Deputies matters little. For once you have them, they will be always with you.
Liberty, the condition of being free from restriction or control, is not much subject to modification. Like pregnancy, one is either pregnant or not; we either have liberty or we don’t. Me? I’m pro-liberty.
I am Italian and don’t know a single person in Italy, in my family, friends or acquaintances, who owns a gun. The last gun I saw was about 40 years ago in the North of Italy, when there was the shooting season for birds. Don’t know if that still goes on. I don’t think I could be friends with anybody who owns a gun, even less go in their house. I would refuse that outright “got a gun in your house? I am not coming!” . Why would any law-obiding citizen need for a gun in their home? self-defence what?put better locks on the doors and windows, or buy an alarm system.
Guns are for killing, fullstop. If everybody thinks “it’s for self-defence” than we should all have one, It’s a very slippery slope.
We are not in the Far West any more, with cowboys and Indians….