Last week a seven year old girl was killed with a gun. The incident happened during a botched robbery that sparked a gunfight between the resident of the house and the robber. It was not clear from whose gun the bullet came.
Not that the seven year old cared
They buried her yesterday. Read all about it
Everyone today seems to have three grievances and a right. Ask a progressive and they will talk about the right to health care. Ask someone on the other side of the political spectrum and chances are good they will spout the second amendment: You cant take my gun away, I got a constitutional right. Says so right in the constitution. After all, didn't the original strict constructionist find a magic right to self defense in the constitution? By golly, it was there all along. And I'll give it up when you pry a copy of the constitution from my cold dead fingers.
Only thing is, rights often have a cost. Contrary to conservative opinion, we on the progressive side of the house are well aware of the cost of the 'right' to health care. And even if we weren't, we would doubtless be reminded of it everyday by those in both the conservative and mainstream media. Somehow many overlook the cost of the second amendment 'right' has to society, in terms of injuries, lost lives, fatal outcomes and irreparable loss.
I think here I will take a page from Dostoyevski's "The Brother's Karamazov" and consider the children. For those not familiar with Russian literature, there is a chapter in the novel where one of the main characters (one of the brothers Karamazov, in fact) describes perfectly the problem of theodicy, that is, why God allows, or cannot stop, evil from occurring. The main character is baffled by theodicy and uses as his example - because it is so clear - the suffering of children. Why must they suffer, he asks, as they are innocent, know nothing of original sin, and cannot be said to have any meaningful philosophical free will? In short powerful strokes he sketches how this permanently blocks him from ever truly accepting God, even if he eventually discovers a purpose to all this pointless suffering. And by the way, this passage went a long way towards killing my own religious impulses as well.
So lets just consider the children. They know very little of the second amendment controversy. They don't really know anything about killing. They are essentially helpless and dependent on their parents or whoever fills that role. As a general rule, their impulses toward weaponry are satisfied by a water pistol. In this context, they are the innocent.
Well of course here in the US, we are a child friendly place. We go beserk if someone exposes a breast on TV. After all, the children may be watching. The country lapses into periodic hysteria about sex offenders such that it ruthlesslessly enforces laws against child pornography and sexual predation, and watches those guilty of it with police state surveillance, in many cases publicly shaming them and all but inviting vigilante justice, all in the name of protecting our children. We question basic vaccines and freely distribute child safety seats, bike helmets and reconstruct our playgrounds, all in the name of keeping the children safe.
Well, except for one thing: its that second amendment 'right'; the country seems oddly indifferent to the children who actually die from guns themselves. You can read some information about the number of children killed or hurt because of gun violence Here<a</p>
Similarly, there is this from the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med 2008; 359:517-518July 31, 2008)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in concert with health authorities across the country, keeps careful records on the number of injuries and deaths that result from handgun use. In 2005, the last year with complete data, there were more than 30,000 deaths and 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms.3 About one quarter of the nonfatal injuries and a tenth of the deaths were in children and adolescents. To place these numbers in perspective, 10 times as many Americans die each year from firearms as have died in the Iraq war during the past 5 years. Firearm injuries represent a major public health problem that seems certain to be exacerbated with less handgun regulation.
It is well documented in the medical literature that regulation of guns benefits the public health. For example, a careful study4 demonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws.
With the weakening of handgun regulations, we are very concerned about the health of the public, especially young people, whose safety is disproportionately affected by firearms. We have a heightened concern about suicide, in which impulsivity may have an important role; ready access to a gun may significantly increase the risk of completion.5,6 We believe that a sensible level of regulation is essential. There is no language in the Constitution that would limit regulation. Indeed, the preamble to the Second Amendment includes the phrase "well-regulated" in reference to the use of firearms by militias. Given the diversity of geography and population in the United States, lawmakers throughout the country need the freedom and flexibility to apply gun regulations that are appropriate to their jurisdictions. The Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller may greatly reduce the latitude that legislators have had in setting firearm regulations for their localities.
Well then last night I am watching a campaign ad from someone trying to get the Republican nomination for governor of Michigan, and he says, with a straight face, how he is both '100% pro-life' and pro gun and that's why he should be governor. With a straight face. Update: he lost.But not because of that statement.
Certainly we can expect Democratic opposition to this. After all, what politician lets a good children's issue like this go to waste? Hmm, not hearing much from the supposed socialists of the country. Didn't even our president express qualified approval of the Heller decision? Yes I know it's a vote loser. Here's another artistic analogy. Ever see "The Way we Were"? Pardon me for saying that the Democratic Party is Hubblell Gardner, and any meaningful gun control is Katie: Sweet thing, loves her deep inside, but when the crunch comes, he abandons her, because after all he has his career to care for.
One other thing: Who do you think pays for this right? Who ultimately pays for the gun injured children, many of whom do not have insurance? They do get taken care of, that is for certain. So who ultimately pays? Do we tax the gun manufacturers for the cost they inflict on society? The gun dealers? The purchasers of firearms? Oh no, we don't do that. They are exercising their right, and by golly whats right is right, besides which aren't we taxed enough already?
Well, as I said in the beginning of the diary, they buried a seven year old in my home state. Caught in a crossfire during a botched home invasion; not real clear whose gun actually delivered the fatal bullet.
Behold your rights, America.