A gun ban isn't going to happen in the US, I don't think anyone realistically thinks that is going to happen.
What I think should be looked into is the gun culture. That is a vastly different thing from banning.
People pipe on about the 2nd Amendment like it alone personifies American gun culture, it doesn't. The forefathers were more perceptive than is given credit, having said that they didn't think of everything.
- The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention personal self-defense in relation to crime.
- The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention sport or recreation.
- The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention hunting for food.
- The 2nd Amendment refers to defense against tyranny.
- The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention ownership. Arguably 'keep' and 'bear' aren't the same as 'own', not even in historic language.
- The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention arsenals of weapons. It doesn't say you are guaranteed your own personal arsenals of weapons. It doesn't say you can have any number of weapons. It doesn't say you can have any sort of weapons, or unlimited weapons. In the context of the war of Independence we are really talking about muskets, and pitchforks. Most of the gun weren't even suitable to be fired indoors.
- The 2nd Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia. I'm sorry but in no way are the bulk of gun owners in the US a regulated militia. You might say the Military is. However this word "Regulated" is key. The key is the forefathers anticipated that if people are to hold and bear weapons it would need to be regulated well. This hasn't really happened.
This is all in the the context of the American Independence struggle. So it is fair to say the the 2nd Amendment is probably one of the most misappropriated pieces of legislature in the US. Herein lies a cultural difference. In older countries a constitution is something that has evolved, and it is not a single document, but many pieces of law. I suppose with new countries you have the opportunity to have a designer constitution. Having said that nothing is going to be without clarification, not even in the US. They obviously do and have, but there is a culture of constitutional absolutism, which is kind of ridiculous.
The gun obsession in US is why people think the solution is in guns. If you think the solution is in gun you are kidding yourself. It is total pipe dream stuff. Yes you can take care or your own personal safety. I myself have benefited in context. But it is really short-sighted if you think that you can secure all corner of society, and that as a national policy that arming schools is going to work practically and economically.
Let us delve into that a bit more. This idea that self-defense is all about set scenario is bs. I do self defense training 2-3 times a week. If you have this mentality you have already lost, because no situation is ever exactly the same twice.
Ok so the shooter knows there are guns in the school, they aren't bothered about dying any way, they decide to shoot come up to the window and just shoot with their military grade assault rifle, take potshot or just spray the classroom, they will hit one target, if they don't get killed then move on to other target other than the school. So they hit the class room, it happens pretty quickly they kill some children, the security are still at the other side of the school, the may not even know what it going on. The teacher if not killed, struggles to get over to the gun safe in the closet, the attack is over in a few seconds, with multiple dead. Even if the teacher had a holster weapon (which poses some issues in itself), they are unlikely going to be fast enough to be able to use it.
What are the next logical conclusions? Expensive perimeter and prison-like environment with 24/7 monitoring? Full on armed team in school, occupying the entire ground floor and more above, with classrooms above? No windows on ground floor, except if bullet proof small, and opaque? Even if this is scalable, which it isn't, is this really the environment you want for you children in a place of learning?
One of the really mistake here is just focusing on events, either hypothetical or real. It is missing the bigger picture, just focusing on how the scenario plays out when it goes wrong. It doesn't take into consideration how that approach is goign to to impact the chances of this happening more or less. People make assumptions on simplistic terms, but if that were the case the incidence wouldn't be so high.
You keep hearing people cite Switzerland like it is a good example. I'm sorry to break it to you, but look at the stats, it is higher than average in gun crime. I'm not trying to knock Switzerland, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of this. Secondly it has less guns per head then the US. It is much better regulated, by being the organized militia the isn't int US. They get what they arm issued with, personal arms. Switzerland is just behind Turkey, Chile and US in the developed world for gun homicides, so it is not super low. The US position is high not only for the developed world but also in the developing world. So just covering ears and eyes isn't a good idea.
The reason why the US has 90% guns isn't because 90% of people have guns, it is because some people have a lot of guns, and many that own guns have more than one. This in itself is an imbalance. You have had so called 'militia' conspire to overthrow the government, or declare their own independence. This couldn't be further from Switzerland.
Interestingly Israel has 1/12th personal arms than the US. This is a country with active national service, with likely front line duties. Yet for personal use, they don't feel the need to be armed. Counter initiative given the security situation. They trust their military and police. Japan has seriously low gun ownership only a 1/10th of Israel. That is less then 1% of the US. This is all proportional to population.
In Mexico the Cartels, I would be the first to admit they could get their guns from anywhere. But they choose not to, they choose to get their guns through legal channels in the US. Why? Because they can get their hand on state of the art guns quite easily that not even the Mexican military can afford.
I for one think there should be a context where people can enjoy and use assault weapons, safely. But this idea that you should be able to take home anything you like really takes the biscuit. There has to be limitations. What next rpg, mortars, heavy artillery, some chemical weapons, a small nuclear warhead? It is a joke, but on the other hand there has been a slow creep toward more and more different kind of weapons in personal use, without real restrictions.
Is it just going to be mud slinging and mutual suspicion or is there going to be a sensible debate?
I was really disappointed in the NRA's response because they had an opportunity. Instead they blamed easy targets, which whilst there may be a grain of truth, there is no evidence that this particular killer was motivated by movies an video games. This seemed to me like a childish response. It would have been better if they had simply said they has no recommendations, and would be researching.
No. The constitution is based on natural rights. The right to life and the right to defend it is an natural right and the right to bear arms is an integral part of that and that is why it was specifically enumerated. Our constitution does not grant rights, it protects our natural rights. Self defense, hunting, and defense against tyranny are all well within our natural rights. Just because something isn't enumerated in the constitution does not mean it doesn't exist, our constitution is actually pretty clear about that. It is a restriction on what our government can do, not a restriction on what the people can do.
23 Dec 2012, 9:42 am
