They say the best way to write is to write, not to think, but I find if I do think a bit first, it helps me loosen up knotty complexities and loose ends that just don't meet, so I've used fishing for that time. Conversation is also always good, because it brings up details you haven't thought about before. Staying busy learning and growing in some way also is a great way to feeding that writing drive. And sometimes, you just have to write what's on your mind, in order to get it out of the way. This is what this post's about.
Of late, I've been disturbed by the massacre in Aurora. I lived through the October Sniper attacks with a few million other people. That is the definition of terrorism, and they inaugurated their arrival in the DC metro area with a spree attack, a few people dead in one day, then they started hitting their pattern. I have no doubt this shooter was intending something very similar. He wouldn't have stopped with one big shooting. This wasn't a drug deal. This wasn't intent to kill somebody specific. This was a staged, organized effort that was going to have a chapter two, three, four, etc. as long as he could control the script, like a video game.
Now, he is an anomoly, of course. Still this reminds me of many issues with "gun rights" and the increasing urbanization of our country. There is no place to shoot safely in a city outside of a carefully built firing range. Period. When our country was founded, it had 2 million people-- less than in New York City today itself-- and we had single-shoot muskets and pistols, with reloading taking seconds to a minute. The founders could never have imagined Aurora, Columbine, The October Sniper attacks, Waco.. the list goes on, wearisomely so.
Now with the expired assault weapons ban which previously banned magazines of over 10 bullets, people are selling and buying 100 bullet magazines. Properly equipped, guns can fire over 100 rounds in a couple minutes, even if they're only "semi-automatic." Secondly, guns expel bullets at high speeds and forces. Some are powerful enough that they can pierce walls and shoot people without either the shooter or victim knowing who did what. This has happened way too often in cities-- bystanders pierced by stray bullets. This is part of why the handgun homicide toll is so high in the USA. Again, this is not a "right" the founding fathers envisioned.
The very anonymity of a bullet is traumatic. A NY Times article on an automated shot-sensing system called Shotspotter has revealed that in a neighborhood in San Francisco, only 10% of shots recorded are accompanied by 911 calls. People freeze, run, or hide. Imagine yourself a kid growing up with the sense you could hear or be shot by gunfire at any time. I had a taste of that endless anxiety with the October Sniper attacks, and I can tell you, it is absolutely unbearable. There's no way children can grow up calm, bright, relaxed, and confident with such conduct. They don't have to be shot to be traumatized. They just have to know that the grown-ups around them can't stop this kind of behavior and could be hurt too. So is that abuse of their community and general welfare really a "right?"
The Declaration of Independence mentions the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The preamble to the US Constitution says this: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The rights of many are being negated by the abusive exercise of the rights of a few. The second amendment is intended to ensure a common defense, not to destroy domestic tranquility.
As of right now, if gun manufacturers weren't protected by the first amendment, millions of Americans could and should sue them for causing life-long loss and emotional trauma. We sue for car accidents. We sue for food poisonings. We sue for everything. We sue for libel and slander (abuse of 1st amendment rights.) But somehow, it seems impossible for us to have meaningful restrictions on how guns and ammo are marketed, sold, and regulated.
The right to bear arms does not mean the right to commit mass murder, or to carry concealed weapons. I've done some homework on the whole issue of whether gun control works or not-- both sides arguing pro and con, and I've found that the evidence is in favor of gun control, properly done. Not prohibition. Control. Regulation. The second amendment is designed to to give states the right to have well-regulated militia. This has been extended to an individual right to bear arms, but this, I think, was erroneous overreach.
I argue that we are actually breaking the second amendment by overfocusing on the deduced "individual right" and invented "right to carry" issues and failing to pay attention to "well-regulated."
Here's a quick test: does a completely blind man have the right to bear a loaded gun in public, just for self-defense, even though he cannot aim or shoot? Isn't such conduct actually going to terrify a lot of innocent people instead of deterring the criminals (which could easily steal the gun and use it on him?) No. This is public endangerment and menancing others.
Now, does this blind man have the right to own a gun, safely locked up, as a collector's item, family keepsake, or in order to make available to family or friends in case of house defense? Yes, of course. Banning one does not preclude the other. One behavior is unregulated abuse of gun rights, the other is regulated. Ownership alone is not the issue, of course. It's never been.
The problem is we excuse "abuse" as inevitable while not even trying to regulate use.
Now, let's go back to the key to common defense-- intelligence and communication. A well-trained dog can do far more than a gun, because the dog can warn you and keep you out of danger. Dogs can smell criminals, as any K-9 officer will tell you, and track them down through crowded cities by focusing on the adrenaline trail, ferret them out of hiding. If guns were enough for defense or apprehension of criminals, the police would not need or use canine officers who are naturally unable to use guns. The military uses dogs as part of its "well-regulated" military defense: to sniff bombs, to alert to enemy approaching, to patrol secure areas.
Also, a gun alone doesn't make a soldier. Communication does. Soldiers are expected to undergo rigorous training to use their weapons, take orders, and act correctly in war. Why haven't we instead expanded the "second amendment" to mean that all citizens have the right to have military training, regardless of their ability to serve? Hmm, maybe because we don't like the draft, even though that's part of the concept of "milita"-- citizens recruited as soldiers? Maybe because the military knows that a lot of people are simply not mentally, physically, or emotionally fit to undergo even a week of military training? Yet many other countries have mandatory military training/service for all able-- men and women. Israel, for instance, has that, and yet in 2008, Israel had one of the lowest murder rates in the world, terrorism issues notwithstanding.
I say it's time to really discuss what the Second Amendment really means, It's not carte blanche for unregulated gun ownership and carrying in America. Putting curbs on guns also does not mean banning citizens from owning guns for hunting or defense. So many people I know who in fact use guns for hunting, service to country, etc. all believe firmly that they personally have no need to stockpile guns or ammo
or carry clips big enough for instant massacres.
What I think is it's time we all learn what a "well regulated milita" really means, and learn firsthand what gun ownership and use SHOULD be, and what citizenship and service of country really does mean. With rights come great responsibilities, including the responsibility of honoring others' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness within the laws of our country. We need to have this part discussed far more when we talk about "rights."
We must understand what a true exercise of our Second Amendment rights in terms of acting in the common defense means. Then, only then, we will finally have a much saner perspective on "gun rights." And America will be truly as secure as the second amendment intended-- not torn apart by random gun violence.
Vent's over. Truly.