Open Writing

The shooting on January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, where nineteen people including politician Gabrielle Giffords were injured, six of them fatally, sent me reaching for my keyboard. I have always been pro-gun control, and have stated my views in this column in the past, but though other mass shootings in the meantime have strengthened my views, I have refrained from comment until now.

When I started to research the topic for this article, surprisingly, I found that the statistical support for my point of view was not persuasive. Though anecdotally it seemed that settling differences with firearms was increasing, the figures don’t bear that out. The US Department of Disease Control and Prevention figures indicate a decline in gun-related injuries, including fatalities, from 14,000 in 1993 to 8,004 in 2004 (the latest available statistics).

The US Bureau of the Census lists firearm deaths of 9,528 in 2002, and 9,464 in 2008, but with a high of 10,218 in 2006. Though figures are not yet available beyond those dates, it is reported that the incidents have continued to decline. But it seems to me that even one fatality or grievous injury is one too many, whether intentional or accidental.

The anti-gun control lobby is a politically powerful group in the USA, and represents a block of votes that most politicians are afraid to offend. The US National Rifle Association, the most vocal and organized part of the lobby, habitually refers to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as its authority.
The Amendment, part of the United States Bill of Rights, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. It does not, however, particularize about how many or what type of arms, or whether the keepers shall be responsible, or sane or rational.

I have no objection to a citizen owning a hunting rifle, or a shot gun, or even a hand gun as long as the weapons were acquired legitimately, and the owners are qualified and monitored regularly, as they are in the UK. After all, you wouldn’t give a loaded weapon even to a soldier without first training him in its use, and ensuring that it was secured when not in use.

The Second Amendment came into being at a time when there was no standing army, as a means to rapidly muster a militia in time of threat. At the time, the available firearms were ball and powder, muzzle loaders. Hardly weapons that could slay a crowd of people in the space of a few minutes, as is the case with today’s automatic weapons.

There was no way that the writers of the Constitutional Amendment could have pictured a Kalashnikov, or a Glock automatic in the hands of an angry employee, a brooding teenager, or a disturbed student.

Aside from the law and constitutionality, there are many illegal weapons in the US, at least in part because they are too easy to obtain. If you need proof of that statement, check into the seizure of weapons caches at the US/Mexican border. An embargo against prosecution, or even a reward for anyone surrendering an illegal weapon would go a long way to reducing the number.

Clearly, the passage of time, and the changes in weaponry and social mores indicate that a revision in the Second Amendment is overdue. It is also apparent that the “keeping to ourselves” social attitude that pervades modern American society needs to be reconsidered.

Almost without exception, after someone has gone berserk with a gun, those close to the perpetrator have declared they were concerned about his or her behavior, sometime weeks or months before the incident.

It takes but a fraction of a second to pull the trigger that releases a hail of bullets. It takes less time than that for a bullet to end someone’s life or to maim them. There’s no going back, and I have to wonder how many murderers would undo their actions if they could.

# # #