This isn't just about school safety. This is about the tens of thousands
of people who commit suicide annually who wouldn't succeed if there
weren't a gun in the house. This is about the toddlers who come across a
gun and shoot themselves, and the teens who are shot coming in after
curfew by their own parents who think they are intruders. This is about
domestic violence and the lax practices that allow abusers to continue
to own guns. This is about the 35,000 annual gun deaths we have in this
nation, a statistic which dwarfs that of other developed nations which
have stricter oversight of civilian ownership/use of guns. This is about
the fact that an 18-year-old in this nation can buy an AR-15 with barely
any effort -- but isn't allowed to buy a beer!
This is about the fact that 95% of Americans, (Qunnipiac University
poll, Nov. 2017) and 74% of *NRA MEMBERS* (January 2013 Johns Hopkins
University poll published in the New England Journal of Medicine)
support universal background checks. Yet congress refuses to move on
such legislation because the NRA, urged on by its gun dealer and
manufacturing funders, keeps terrifying congresspeople with vows to sink
their next campaigns if they vote in favor of even the mildest gun
regulation. *NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF AMERICANS FAVOR UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND
CHECKS!* This is about as close to unanimity as you will get on ANY
subject in this nation -- so WHY CAN'T WE HAVE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND
CHECKS?
Yes, this is a mental health issue. But only about three to five percent
of violent acts in the US are committed by individuals who have been
diagnosed with a mental illness, and the percentage of crimes they
commit with a gun "are lower than the national average for persons not
diagnosed with mental illness," according to findings published in the
American Journal of Psychiatry in 2015. Yes, we need to have a better
mental health system, we need better and more comprehensive and
compassionate diagnosis and treatment. All true!
But if the guns aren't available, then the people who have undiagnosed
mental health issues cannot use them to wreak havoc on the innocent. I'm
tired of people claiming that somehow if we could manage (after 230
years of arguing about how to fix mental health issues in this country,
dating back to the days of chaining people up in asylums or
electro-shocking their brains into dormancy or performing
humanity-altering frontal lobotomies) -- if we could even manage to fix
or improve our mental health treatments in this nation, that this would
somehow keep people from shooting one another or themselves. If the
current administration is so convinced that gun violence is a mental
health issue, then the following makes no sense: "On February 28, 2017,
Congress passed and Donald Trump signed a law revoking an Obama-era
regulatory initiative that made it harder for people with mental illness
to buy a gun." In other words, Trump and the congress, in 2017, made it
EASIER for people with mental illness to buy guns. But gun violence is a
result of mental illness, and not the easy availability of guns?
There are dozens of developed nations (Japan, the UK, Australia, Canada,
etc.) which have stricter gun ownership restrictions than the US, but
just taking Australia as an example. In the 1990s there were several
mass shootings, such as the Port Arthur Massacre, which led Australia as
a nation to decide (and vote) that it was time to tighten gun ownership
and use in the nation. Resulting legislation varied from region to
region, but gun laws were generally aligned in 1996 by the National
Firearms Agreement (NFA), which provides that: "A person who possesses
or uses a firearm must have a firearm license. License holders must
demonstrate a "genuine reason" for holding a firearm license and must
not be a "prohibited person". All firearms in Australia must be
registered by serial number to the owner, who also holds a firearms
license." (Wikipedia.)
Alongside these requirements, gun amnesties have been offered,
particularly in New South Wales: "In New South Wales there have been
three gun amnesties in 2001, 2003 and 2009. 63,000 handguns were handed
in during the first two amnesties and over 4,323 handguns were handed in
during the third amnesty. During the third amnesty 21,615 firearm
registrations were received by the Firearms Registry. The surrendered
firearms were all destroyed."
"On 16 June 2017, the Minister for Justice Michael Keenan announced that
a national firearms amnesty would commence on 1 July 2017 for three
months until September 30, to hand in unregistered or unwanted
firearms.[28] The amnesty had been approved in March 2017 by the
Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group (FWPWG) to reduce the number
of unregistered firearms in Australia..."
Different studies vary in their assessment of how these actions have
affected gun deaths in Australia. However, here is some of the most
recent reporting:
FactCheck.org: "In fact, the most recent government report on crime
trends in Australia says, “Homicide in Australia has declined over the
last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on
record in the past 25 years.”
In a 2013 report Samantha Bricknell from the Australian Institute of
Criminology, Frederic Lemieux and Tim Prenzler compared mass shootings
between America and Australia and found the "1996 NFA coincided with the
cessation of mass shooting events" in Australia, and that there were
reductions in America that were evident during the 1994-2004 US Federal
Assault Weapon Ban.
A 2015 journal article in the International Review of Law and Economics
evaluated the effect of the NFA on overall crime, rather than just
firearm deaths like other studies. Using the difference in differences
identification approach, they found that after the NFA, "there were
significant decreases in armed robbery and attempted murder relative to
sexual assault".
In 2016 four researchers evaluated the National Firearms Agreement after
20 years in relation to mental health. They said that the "NFA
exemplifies how firearms regulation can prevent firearm mortality and
injuries."
In 2016 a study by Adam Lankford, associate professor of criminal
justice, examined the links between public mass shootings and gun
availability in various countries. He found that the restrictions in
Australia were effective, concluding that "in the wake of these
policies, Australia has yet to experience another public mass shooting."
Don't get me wrong. I take civil liberties very seriously, as I think
everyone in WAC does -- and in our nation in general, for that matter.
But there comes a time when a common sense approach to civil liberties
is required for the common good. For example, Americans have agreed
that, for the sake of human life and a more smoothly functioning
society, Americans will stop at red lights and stop signs; we will study
and take driver's tests to receive a license to operate a vehicle; we
will give emergency vehicles right of way; Americans will not fire off
guns within residential areas; we will maintain vehicle speed limits; we
will allow search and seizure when probable cause is shown and a warrant
obtained; we expect punishment when we steal the property of others.
These are all curtailments of what some would call our civil liberties,
but we as a society have agreed to these curtailments for the sake of
living together as a community.
Quoting from " Balancing Individual Rights and the Common Good" by
Alexander P. Orlowski: "Oftentimes, the most difficult questions are
appropriately resolved by the judiciary, and not by politics. Justice
John Paul Stevens recognized the tension of deciding such disputes in
his dissenting opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago: “More fundamental
rights may receive more robust judicial protection, but the strength of
the individual’s liberty interests and the State’s regulatory
interests
must always be assessed and compared. *No right is absolute.*”
(This last statement by Justice Stevens must be compared with the stand
of the NRA and other gun lobbies that there must be absolutely NO
abridgement of the rights of gun owners. NONE. PERIOD. Yet
Constitutional experts have always agreed that all rights are open to
regulation when the question of the common good is in direct opposition
to the unfettered exercise of that right.)
"The Supreme Court has made landmark decisions throughout our nation’s
history, drawing a line demarking the balance between the common good
and individual rights in each instance."
"In the end, however, the ultimate responsibility falls on us, as
citizens. We retain both the right and the obligation to insist on a
government that is of, by, and for ALL people."
When the gun lobbies derail the will of the majority of Americans by
pressuring the congress into ignoring that will, then democracy is no
longer democracy. This is what we are fighting against in the gun
control struggle. It is not just a question of guns, it is the broader
question of the tyranny of the will of the few over the will of the many.
For these broader constitutional reasons, but more fundamentally for the
good of our children, our families, and our nation, I would like WAC to
participate in whatever fashion it chooses in the March for Our Lives on
March 24. I feel that this is one area of critical importance that WAC
is not addressing -- and I realize that we are addressing so many at
this point that it is difficult to take on another; but this is an issue
which falls under the purview of several of our committees and programs:
health, education, Choose Civility, electing women, women's issues in
general! I would like us to begin connecting with a group of our choice
(Moms Demand Action, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,
Everytown, Safe Schools, etc.) to bring this issue to the public in
Allegany County -- perhaps have a forum, or an information/education
project, literature at our farmer's market tables, etc. With each new
mass shooting this topic becomes more vital -- but we must not forget
the gun deaths which happen every day across our nation in 1's and 2's
that don't make the headlines.
Part II:
I have thought long and hard over many years about this issue of balancing the individual rights of citizens against the need for safety. It is a fine line to walk, and one which must be addressed with great care, because leaning too heavily to one side or the other can start us down a slippery slope. The US Constitution is pointedly geared toward individual rights, as it properly should be -- but the necessity of living safely in any society requires that everyone give up some freedom or self-determination for the sake of the good of all. Trying to decide where these lines should be drawn, and what can/should be required of us as well-intentioned citizens, is one of the questions which has stymied Americans for generations.
A few of the freedoms we have sacrificed to the "common good" are large (the necessity for a military draft in times of war, Eminent Domain, etc.) but most of the freedoms we have given up are small ones, and many (such as abiding by traffic safety regulations) were not foreseen by the Founders nor addressed in the Constitution. The necessity to address the right to gun ownership WAS foreseen by them, and in the era in which they were writing, with the scenarios they could envision, what they came up with in the 2nd Amendment seemed right and just to them. Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment was left intentionally vague in its wording, leaving future generations to puzzle out the Founders' intentions -- and, even more critically, the Founders did not envision a world where firepower such as we now have access to would be available. (Other amendments have been themselves amended or changed as technology or societal conscience advanced, such as the changing of the recognition of the rights of African Americans and women.) The Founders could also not have envisioned a world where violence in the culture would be so pervasive, since they could not foresee TV, movies, video games -- nor even, probably, almost universal literacy. And not in their wildest nightmares would they have envisioned a world where their 2nd Amendment would open the door to Columbine, Aurora, Las Vegas or Parkland.
The 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution for 2 main reasons:
1. The drafters of the document and the Founders in general feared a strong, standing army. The state of government in the new nation at the time was too weak to allow of a military force which might be capable of a military coup if it were so inclined, and so provision for a standing army was deliberately omitted. Instead, it was decided that individual citizens should be depended upon to come to the aid of the nation if necessary, and thus it was critical that they have the right to buy and maintain their own weapons. In this way, the government would not be saddled with the financial burden of maintaining a comprehensive permanent military, and the threat of a possible military coup was mitigated. The US was essentially depending on the patriotism of individuals to act as "Minute Men" and materialize, already armed, if the government called.
2. This is a little-known and rarely-mentioned fact, but the 2nd Amendment was also included as a way of appeasing the Southern States. It was customary in the slave-holding South for plantation-owners to volunteer to serve in "Slave Patrols" -- armed groups of wealthy slave-owners who patrolled their own and their neighbors' plantations after dark to put down incipient slave uprisings such as the 1831 Nat Turner Rebellion. These men needed to carry weapons for this purpose, and resisted any attempts to regulate their ownership or use of those weapons. When the Southern representatives to the Constitutional Convention realized that the comparatively small population of the South laid them open to control by the more populous and more anti-slavery North, it was decided that concessions must be made to the South to keep them in the Union. (This is essentially the same reason that the "Anti-Slavery Clause" originally included by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was removed -- to appease the Southern Colonies.) Thus another reason for inclusion of the 2nd Amendment.
In this day and age, the first reason for the Amendment (which is clearly spelled out in the language "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the defense of the State" as the first clause of the Amendment) is thoroughly negated by the military power maintained by the United States. It is no longer necessary for "Minute Men"-style militias to come to the defense of the country. However, there are those far-right and rabid libertarians or anarchists who believe that it might be necessary for an armed revolt against what they see as an ever-encroaching government, which is one reason some gun owners are determined to keep and add to their weapons stockpiles. The threat of having their guns taken away from them is one way in which the NRA and other lobbies scare their members into support of the organizations' actions. This repeated threat pounded home by these organizations is also the reason gun sales increase markedly after mass shootings -- owners are being told by lobby organizations that NOW, THIS TIME, public outrage over guns is so great that the government is COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, or is going to block all future gun sales in the US.
The second reason for the Amendment, armed slave patrols, is, thankfully, no longer an issue in the US.
This brings us back to the issue of "societal good vs. individual rights".
Despite the difficulty in making fair judgments on the line of demarcation in these questions, there are some cases which, in my opinion, have become crystal clear over the years, and stricter gun control regulation is one of those cases.
As technology and social conscience evolves, creating or uncovering new threats and new needs for protections, government (backed by the people) adds such protections to the law books. When it was "discovered" that women should have the right to vote, and that African Americans were (surprise!) human beings, the Constitution was amended to reflect those altered views. When automobiles were found to be taking lives in the early part of the 20th century, laws began to appear regulating their use, the training and licensing of their operators, and providing for penalties for contravening those laws. (And cars, I might point out, are not created for the purpose of taking lives, whereas guns are specifically created for that purpose!) For the good of all, American citizens have agreed to abide by these regulations. Recognition of the need for food safety has ushered in all sorts of regulations for farmers, dairies, butchers, processors, packagers, and distributors, and we have agreed as a society to abide by these rules for the good of all.
A large part of the societal norms agreed to by Americans involve regulation of our individual actions, from littering to home construction, from slander and libel restrictions to copyright infringement, and we have chosen these regulations by majority vote as routes to societal safety and the smooth operation of the community in general.
The Preamble to the Constitution specifically states that three of government's fundamental functions are to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare," of the people; Americans have been generally agreed that they do not want an enormous, over-reaching government (which we, granted, already have!) but that they DO want their government to perform the basic function of protecting the people from any sort of danger, whether it be a military threat, a threat to health, the threat of natural disasters, the threat of ignorance without available education, or other threats as yet unrecognized. Therefore we grant our government the power to make and enforce laws which a majority of Americans agree will lead to our protection from any given threat, and we add to those laws as new threats are recognized.
The one glaring omission in these societally agreed-upon regulations has been the area concerning the one technology specifically created to take life: weapons.
Yet, as I pointed out before, large majorities of Americans support certain measures (assault weapons bans, universal background checks, gun violence research, bump stock bans) and this majority support *should* ensure that these measures sail through congress with little or no opposition; as the servants of the people, our representatives should be doing *our* will. Unfortunately, in the last 30 years the NRA and other gun lobbies, fearing the loss of the massive donations they rely on from gun manufacturers and dealers, have managed to shift the focus of the conversation: instead of the will of the people and the right of citizens to live free of the fear of gun violence, the lobbies have successfully switched the focus to threats of the abridgement of individual gun-owners' rights by a tyrannical government -- an approach which ensures the support of a certain portion of the extreme libertarian and right-wing electorate, who see government not as a useful tool for the common good, but as the all-controlling enemy.
The gun lobbies have successfully bought congress with financial donations in return for unquestioning support of extremist lobby policies, and with the even more potent threat of rousing gun owners to oppose re-election for representatives seen as "unsupportive" of the policies of gun lobbies. Whether these threats should be productive of the cowardice we see among congress people or not, the result has been that those representatives fearing loss of their seats, those who genuinely buy into the gun lobby rhetoric, and those afraid of appearing "soft on crime" or opposed to the rights of individuals, have chosen to march in lock step with the gun lobbies, regardless of the will of large majorities of the American population.
Education, pressure, common sense, factual information instead of myth -- all of these must be brought to bear or made available, not just in congress, but with those who are falling for the lies and scare-tactics employed by the gun lobbies, if we are to face and mitigate the scourge of gun violence in this nation.
Yes, mental health can be a factor -- as can poverty, ignorance, despair, drugs, and a host of other causes -- and all of these must be addressed. But the first step MUST be to get weapons out of the hands of those who would use them for wrong, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR REASON FOR USING THEM MIGHT BE.
If we do not take away the tool which turns anger, madness or fear into homicide, then we will never stop the killings, and we will find it even more difficult to address the underlying causes of the violence. If a person begins racking up DUI's, do we allow him to keep driving while we figure out what is causing him to drink? NO! We take away his right/ability to operate a vehicle, THEN we deal with the underlying causes of his drinking problem. If a person is beating his children and raping his daughters, do we leave them defenseless in his home while we put him into counseling to figure out his mental issues? NO! We get the vulnerable to a place of safety or we remove the perpetrator from the home or we put a restraining order in place, THEN we begin to explore the backstory and deal with the treatment. If your daughter repeatedly set fire to the drapes, would you allow her to hold onto the matches while you take the time to find out the reasons for her pyromania? Not if you value your home or your daughter!
The natural (and logical and very American) response to this argument is that not all gun owners are liable to commit murder or assault with their guns, and so they should not be "punished" by being required to have their guns regulated. If you suggest universal background checks and a required waiting period, the gun lobby responds with the tale of a woman who was killed by her boyfriend while waiting for the background check on the gun she was trying to buy for protection. If you suggest gun locks or locked gun cabinets, they will tell you the story of the homeowner who was killed by an intruder while he was trying to find the gun cabinet keys. If you suggest a ban on assault weapons -- well, the general run-of-the-mill gun owner is not buying an assault weapon to commit carnage, but because they are fun to shoot and awesome for target practise, and therefore why should his right to own one be abridged? If you suggest that gun violence research should not be curtailed but rather funded by the government and conducted by the CDC and the NIH as a matter of public health -- well, those government studies are always lies, filled with fake statistics to make the case on behalf of the snowflakes and the liberals, who are out to take away all the guns! And on and on it goes.
What it boils down to is this: because of the way the Constitution is written, specifically denying any abridgement of the right to own guns (for whatever reason it appears to be worded that way) -- what gun regulation supporters are asking, pure and simple, is that gun owners, like Americans in other regulatory situations, make the decision to agree to a curtailment of some of their 2nd Amendment rights for the sake of the safety of everyone in the society. (And remember here that Justice Stevens of the Supreme Court has been upheld repeatedly in his statement that "No right is absolute.") We are asking them to weigh their right to own an assault weapon or not to undergo a background check against the right of our children not to be shot in the stomach during algebra class, or a woman's right not to be murdered by her domestic partner, or to protect a distraught teen from giving in to his despair and committing suicide by an almost inevitably fatal gunshot.
Americans have agreed to regulation of dozens of other situations far less dangerous than those presented by the rampant presence of guns in this nation. What we are asking is not unreasonable: there are already enough guns abroad in this nation to arm every man, woman and child, and no one is talking about rounding them up, although a gun amnesty for those willing to part with their weapons would be a welcome action. All we are asking is that gun owners and enthusiasts put the welfare of all American citizens ahead of their love of guns, or their perceived need to own a gun, and allow for common sense regulation which might move in the direction of seeing that those who plan to use guns safely and responsibly can do so, and that we should at least stand a chance to keep them out of the hands of those who might be tempted to use them for carnage.
Looking at the dead bodies of kindergartners and teenagers scattered across our land, listening to the anguished wails of their families, and noting the horror with which the rest of the world looks on at the slaughter in the US, it doesn't seem like too much to ask..
And I probably didn't need to write this entire lecture, but could have just attached this link, because this guys says it so much better and more simply:
https://www.facebook.com/100007513365065/videos/1993503840910042/
