For Eve
Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race on January 27th, 2007, Barack Obama on February 10, 2007. Thereafter, Democrats and even some Republicans have shown alacrity toward both the candidates themselves and the issues they have raised — atypical in a governmental system that regularly earns dismal reviews in opinion polls. We have seen universal healthcare raised from a tomb that Hillary herself once helped bury; we have seen calls for fiscal responsibility as our debt rises, we’ve seen plans to help folks whose homes are in foreclosure, and a variety of other policies responding to crises that have drawn attention throughout the course of the campaign. The candidates and their staff, particularly on the Democratic side, should be commended for the rapidity with which they have responded. Despite the progress we’re making in setting the agenda for the Senator who will head the Executive in 2009, there is a dire inconsistency that exposes the Democrats as pusillanimous when dealing with touchy issues: That is, Gun Control.
Both candidates have been in the race for about 14 months and in those 14 months we have seen 18 school shootings. 2007 saw Philadelphia receive the nickname “Killadelphia” as the city counted more than 1 murder per day through April 25, 2007. (Keep in mind; this was all happening as the Democrats were drafting their agendas) Meanwhile, the debates gave occasion for both candidates to tout their achievements: Hillary proudly described her success in getting SCHIP passed (a bill that provides health care to children) and Obama spoke at length regarding both his present opposition to the Iraqi invasion and his opposition from its inception. These achievements are certainly meritorious, but they are ultimately, in the context of gun violence, incomplete, inadequate, and insincere.
Hillary Clinton’s work on the SCHIP bill provides health care to children whose families cannot afford it. If Senator Clinton is so concerned with the safety of our children, why has she only offered empty condolences for the victims of gun violence? Obama’s politically unpopular stand for opposing the war in Iraq should have served as a lesson that we’re not only allowed to oppose morally objectionable policies, but we are obligated. Instead, Obama offers this: “And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot.” Clinton agrees: “I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms.” What? I thought I was in the progressive party. It’s the conservatives who are supposed to make fools of themselves with their archaic, unenlightened notions of reality. We owe it to ourselves as humans and as Democrats to take the moral high-ground here. I’m ashamed of my party when Chris Rock has more constructive ideas about gun control.
Because this issue is a constitutional one, it has more serious legal obstacles than other issues on the table, which means two things. One, we desperately need a Democrat in office this November to balance the Supreme Court. If we don’t, the neocons will continue to impose on us their primitive, Bible-based, and radically outdated interpretations of our Constitution. We need to start a movement for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution must adapt to the political and social realities over which it rules. It has proven insufficient 27 times, and for the sake of future American lives, needs to be amended once more. I love the Constitution as much as anyone (I have a tattoo of its author on my arm for christ’s sake), but the 2nd Amendment is its most serious defect. The Constitution seeks to “ensure domestic tranquility”, and “promote the general welfare”, not to condone the production and use of machines designed to kill humans.
Secondly, because of the roadblock in the Supreme Court, we need to start a grassroots/netroots movement by pressuring our local politicians to do something, anything to prevent another death from a gun that will inevitably happen somewhere in America tonight. We need to prevent groups like the NRA from giving grants to professors for 2nd Amendment “research”. Don’t forget about the presidential race that’s going on, Barack and Hillary are on the campaign trail and want to hear what you have to say. Hold them accountable for their inaction. But we can only blame Washington so much, we also have to hold ourselves accountable; someone voted for George Bush, who appointed Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court; and some people are going to vote for John McCain who is one of the 2nd amendments biggest supporters. Will that be you?
This article is written for all of the victims of gun violence, particularly Eve Carson who was very close to many of my friends. Eve was twenty-two, a native of Georgia and UNC’s student body president. Eve was widely beloved, and had upward of a thousand friends on Facebook. She died early Wednesday morning of multiple gunshot wounds. The same night, only hours before, another young woman was slain at Auburn University. The police have no suspects in either case. Let’s not allow our future leaders to sidestep this issue anymore. Let’s not allow our future leaders to sidestep this issue anymore.
7 Comments »
-
I appreciate your sentiment. A close friend of mine was killed with a handgun at only 14 years old. I find it surprising that people’s views on guns diverge so drastically when their own lives are touched by gun-related deaths.
I, personally, think the idea of repealing the 2nd ammendment is ridiculous. You appear to have great respect for Mr. Jefferson. He provided unreserved justification for the 2nd Ammendment when he wrote, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Two more of my friends have died in car accidents since Bryson died. Nobody talks about outlawing cars. I’ve met several vicitms of severe stabbings. Nobody talks about outlawing knives. 3,000 people died on September 11 because of box cutters… See the pattern?
I think guns envoke stronger resistance because cars, knives and boxcutters have clearly positive use, and a gun’s ONLY purpose is to produce bodily harm to something living. The thing we have to keep in mind, as Jefferson reminded us, is that they serve in our defense more than they ever serve against us. That idea rings true today, even in an unbiased evaluation.
The Centers for Disease Control estimated under Bill Clinton’s term that guns are used legally in self-defense around 1.5 million times annually. Given the most generous estimates that say that guns injure as many as 100,000 people in crimes annually, we can conclude without doubt that the balance of guns’ net effect on society is positive.
I understand that there are strong feelings about this issue. Many people simply hate the idea of guns. I do too. When I take mine with me when I go somewhere, I hope and pray that I won’t have to use it… but I still take it. I take it because I know I’ve changed the odds in my favor by having it. I’m 15x more likely to use that gun in my own defense, or the defense of someone else than to be the victim of a crime involving someone else’s gun.
Please take pause to consider the real facts behind gun ownership. The National Academy of Sciences did a study entitled Firearms and Violence, in which they failed to find a single gun control regulation that ever reduced crime. Some may point out that they also were unable to validate John Lott’s pro-gun study, but reading the dissent in the appendix reveals that there was at least one member who believed his results were valid. The only way to call them into question is to remove control variables, as we, the academically inclined, are well aware is unacceptable.
The bottom line here is that every credible academic study favors greater civilian gun ownership. Those studies conclude that the impact to society is neutral at the absolute worst, and given neutrality, shouldn’t we favor freedom? Jefferson would.
//
Paul Ready -
I’m sorry to break it to you but complex problems do not have easy solutions like you seem to expect. Banning the general public from possessing firearms will only affect those who respect the law. I’m sure you’ve heard this argument before but choose to ignore it.
Weapons, all weapons are tools used to multiply the force an individual can project. Criminals rely on the use of force to infringe on the rights of others and the only thing that will stop this once it is in action is equal or greater force used to protect rights. This is where force multipliers create equality by multiplying the force of a 19 year old college student and an 80 year old senior citizen to both be equal to or greater than that of a 25 year old steroid abuser who seeks to harm them.
Studies done in Florida have shown that the average conceal carry individual is five times less likely than an average member of society to commit crimes. The reason is because these people think about their personal responsibility to both defend themselves and their loved ones and seek, at personal cost and inconvenience, to go through the process to carry legally. Thus they are by definition responsible law abiding individuals for simply going through the process. Interviews with inmates convicted of either burglary and armed robbery are less likely to target someone that they know or believe to be armed. Additionally according to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 there are an average of 2.5 million defensive uses of a firearm used to stop a crime in action with almost 16% of the incidents being reported that the action saved a life.
As an aside here are the Gun Owners of America’s rankings for John McCain:
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htmAs you can see he has steadily scored below average marks and in the last four years has scored the lowest ranking possible.
I could go on but its my belief that this information will fall on deaf ears but if I am wrong please feel free to contact me and perhaps we can talk about actually productive means to save lives and preserve the natural rights that all humans enjoy.
//
Ken Fichtner -
I’ll commend you for being honest in representing your actual objectives. You are a cut above most gun control advocates in that they refuse to admit that they’d like nothing more than a repeal of the Second Amendment. That being said, your aims are poorly conceived and reveal a naive perception of reality — one in which the use of force no longer exists.
The right to life is a fundamental part of natural law, or if you prefer, a human right, and the ability to effectively defend one’s own life is essential to that right. If effective means of self defense like firearms are made illegal, a monopoly on force has been ceded to criminals and to the government alone.
Millions of Americans will not cede this right, whether or not the Second Amendment is repealed. Do you truly believe the government has the ability, or even the will, to disarm 80 million gun owners? It doesn’t matter, in any case — your cause is impotent and you simply do not have the numbers to take from us what is ours by right.
//
Grant -
repealing the second amendment is politically impossible and will be for the foreseeable future. we might achieve more modest goals, mandatory gun registration and licensing, ballistics fingerprinting, and regulations governing the manufacture and sale of guns.
//
Michael Bishop -
The only thing gun control laws accomplish is to limit the law abiding citizen. Criminals don’t follow the laws that are passed and will continue to use firearms in the same way that they use them now. The only difference will be that people will not be able to protect themselves and their loved ones now. Both Great Britain and Australia have tried to outlaw guns and guess what, their crime rates went UP not down.
The reason the founding fathers put the right of the people to bear arms in the Constitution was so that we can defend ourselves against an oppressive government. The 2nd amendment is the only one that ensures the rest of them. If we, the people, are unable to rise up against oppression if the need ever arises, how do you expect to enjoy all of these freedoms that you are so fond of, including free speech which you used to write this article.
Admiral Yammamoto, the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor was once asked why he didnt follow through and invade the US mainland after he had wiped out the only military force between him and California. His response was that he had lived in the US as he attended college at Harvard and knew that most Americans had firearms and that the pople of this country possesed the power to stand up to invaders and oppressors.
Also, in this country to buy a firearm LEGALLY there is a system in place to conduct background checks, many places have a waiting period and many dealers wont sell to someone who looks/acts like they have a psychological defect. Yet, anyone cal walk into a K-Mart or Sports Authority and buy a baseball bat and beat someone to death., which in my opinion would be a much worse way to go than getting shot.
Crimes aren’t only committed with firearms, you can kill people with baseball bats and cars, but no one is trying to keep you from driving to a ball game. Would it be fair to outlaw baseball bats, all metal pipes, wrenches, cars, knives, axes, and hammers because SOME people use them for illegal activities. The obvious answer is no.
//
Jacob Froeschner -
The 2nd ammendment isn’t the Constitutions biggest defect, it’s what protects the rest of the Ammendments. Most of you folks you have commented have mentioned how gun control leaves innocent people defenseless against thieves rapists and killers but the 2nd Ammendment serve another purpose as well, to protect the people from an over powerful government. History has shown that when brutal dictators (ie. Hitler, Stalin) have wanted to oppress the subjects the first thing they do is enact gun control laws stripping people of their ability to defend themselves. The 2nd Ammendment guarantees that something like that could never happen in the United States.
Seriously, do you really want to live in a place where only criminals and the government are armed?
Matt, I’m sorry about your friend but the numbers don’t lie, gun control wouldn’t have prevented her tragic death and may actually lead to more tragic deaths at the hands of criminals who have no regard for the law.
//
Scott
Please do some research about the effects of gun control, and criminal activities before advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Criminals will always be able to access guns, all gun control does is remove the ability for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Those with Concealed Carry Licenses and other such permits make up an extremely small percentage of crimes.
20 March 2008 at 10:13 am