The Right to Arm Bears...
Once again, focus has been brought to bear on personal weaponry by the slaughter of five innocents in the small town of Jonesboro, Arkansas.The alleged killers were two children, aged 13 and 11.
This latest outrage reminded me of a young man of my acquaintance, who, a few years ago, purchased - perfectly legally - a 9mm semi-automatic handgun.
I was horrified. I asked him why he had bought this weapon of human destruction.
"For self-protection," he replied.
He went on to posit a situation whereby he would use the gun in the event an intruder broke into his house in the middle of the night.
I pointed out that this would involve him locating both the weapon and the ammunition in pitch darkness, loading the gun, and, in the event that he confronted the intruder, shoot it accurately. I pointed out further, that, in a situation like this, a shotgun would be a better bet.
He was unfazed.
Discussions - undignified squabblings? - over the right to bear arms usually revolve around the precise wording and interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Here's what it says:
"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."Presumably both my young acquaintance and the Arkansas children regard themselves as members of "a well-regulated Militia"...
The debate about citizen weaponry exists on a far more fundamental and philosophical level than the wording of a document drawn up in a different age and time.
It concerns the acceptance by a citizenry of the state's right to control the means of force. Indeed, the right of the state to acquire and maintain a monopoly of the means of destruction - something with which Americans have traditionally had a problem.
Of course, we Europeans sorted all that out many centuries ago. One of the fortunate results is that, in general in Western Europe, the death and injury rate from handgun use is negligible compared to the US. Europe therefore avoids the appalling social, emotional and economic cost of handgun misuse.
The average cost to society of treating the victim of a handgun wounding is, we are told, $25,000 (Burying the victim of a handgun shooting is $18,750. "Help the economy - shoot to kill!").
I have to ask myself, with a healthcare system in crisis, infant mortality rising (ours is worse than that demon-pariah Cuba), the quality of care declining and costs rising, whether we, as a nation, can actually afford virtually unfettered access to handguns?
Figure it out. If all the resouces devoted to the care of victims of handguns were re-allocated to - say - pre- and post-natal care and preventative healthcare for infants, we might reach the infant mortality rate of third world countries like Jamaica and Cuba. And even aspire to European levels!
On the wall of my office, I have a poster. It's about 3'x4'. It is filled with passport sized photographs (accompanied by brief descriptions) of all the victims of guns in the US in the week of May 1-7, 1958. Were this exercise to be repeated today, I doubt my office walls would be large enough to accommodate even half the victims.
Here's a suggestion. Anyone over age 18, with a clean criminal record, can possess a shotgun, as long as they and their weapon are registered with the local Police or Sheriff's Department. Access to ALL other weapons is banned.
What's wrong with that? After all, if the ATF comes after you with a tank, neither an M16 nor an Uzzi are going to be much good...
- John Blower
March 25, 1998Back to PenSites...