Street smarts
April 23, 2007 at 5:41 (Neil at Citizen of the Month posted an interview with a fellow blogger on gun control. His friend, a law enforcement officer who doesn't own guns, supported the rights of people to own guns and carry concealed weapons. The following is based on the lengthy comment I left on Neil’s site, which seemed long enough to be a blog entry of its own.)
Living in Europe now, I am subject to the outrage people here feel in response to American gun policies. Why should Europeans care? Because most of the handguns in Europe come from America, and they feel their own gun policies are being undermined by ours.
Until we moved here, we owned guns. Early in our marriage, my husband was a hunter. When he was in the military and had access to a shooting range, he liked to target shoot and we had a handgun for use on the range. When we had children the guns were hidden and locked away and not used at all. The children didn’t know they existed until we sold them when we left the U.S. Guns can be responsibly owned and used for sport, but that doesn't mean I would not support legislation to limit the type and number of weapons people could own and the circumstances they can buy them under.
On Neil's blog, his friend wondered what would have happened if one of the students or professors in Norris Hall had been armed. How might that have changed the story? Could someone have killed the shooter? What if they fumbled with the gun and shot an innocent person?
There are lots of guns in the U.S. but is anyone really safer? Does the number of guns in America deter crime? Contrast the number of times we read about accidental shootings of innocent people because of guns in a home with the number of times we hear about Citizen John Doe successfully using a weapon to prevent a crime or defend himself against a real threat.
When someone feels they’re in danger, do we want their first response to be picking up the phone or picking up a weapon?
When police respond and arrive at the scene of a crime, do our law enforcement officers want to be dealing with “citizen shooters” and “friendly fire” as well as criminal fire?
Is it right for Citizen John Doe to shoot and kill someone about to steal his motorcycle out of his home driveway? How about someone carrying his TV out of his house when he arrives home? How about someone stealing his iPod?
Where do we draw the line on what’s acceptable use of a firearm? Do people deserve to DIE for property crime, for trespassing?
Anybody besides me remember Bernie Goetz? Was he a hero or a villain?
Last year in Belgium, a young man was fatally stabbed in a Metro station when he refused to surrender his MP3 player to two teens. Within days, nearly 100,000 people gathered and marched in the city to protest his killing.
My question for Americans is WHERE IS OUR SENSE OF OUTRAGE? Maybe the tens of thousands of people filling stadiums and reciting school cheers to “remember the victims” should hit the streets instead.
March and demand answers. March and demand change. March and let your words and presence say that these sorts of killings are unacceptable, and we need to do EVERYTHING we can to prevent them. Sure second amendment rights are important, but let's not forget the power of our first amendement rights to freely assemble and speak. Words CAN change the world. Whatever your thoughts are, engage in the political process and share them with those who have the power to change our laws and shape our culture.
April 23, 2007
Copyright 2007 Veronica McCabe Deschambault and V-Grrrl in the Middle. All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (9)
Every time an event such as last weeks in VT occurs, there is an upswell of renewed support for more gun control. The sad fact is that our current controls are not being enforced. The US spends an absurd amount of money on defense but oddly enough, spending on domestic law enforcement ranks LAST in absolute dollars.
Perhaps we should re-focus our outrage at a government that continues to cut law enforcement budgets. Maybe we should be more upset with the prosecutors who plea bargin instead of prosecuting criminals who use guns.
I do agree that the gun laws need to be more cohesive. If Vermont had communicated the shooters mental health information to the feds, he would have been prevented from buying the guns used last Monday (assuming that part of the system works).
I am aware about the laws governing use of deadly force from my years as a news reporter. I didn't mean to insinuate that anyone can shoot anyone for any reason and not be held accountable. I covered the police beat, pardon and parole, and the Dept. of Corrections for two years and even took a few college courses on criminology, the history of law enforcement, and violence in America. I do know better.
However, many people DON'T know better. Our culture, our movies, our entertainment often send a message that the right to own or carry a gun carries a right to use it against real or perceived enemies. I think that's a bigger problem than the gun itself.
However people feel about this issue, they should let their elected officials know. Whether they think the answer is gun control, funding law enforcement, or funding social and mental health services or loosening privacy laws on sharing information, they should make their ideas known.
If people don't ask questions, they can't work on the answers.
And JMo, yes it is illegal, but this kind of "protection" of personal property happens anyways. I remember "back in the day," kids used to fight (with their hands)...it may not have resolved EVERYTHING, but at least they lived another day to talk about it, and 9 times out of 10 were friends again within 48 hours!!! Now days, they just shoot or stab each other...It is sad, very sad.
And we all know that no one is going to really weigh in on gun control NOW--not NOW when the Democrats, traditionally the gun control people, are poised to finally take the White House after a long, long drought of executive power. They don't want to alienate any crossover voters from the other party. And the other party is NEVER EVER going to say "let's give up the guns, people." So, it's just not going to be the issue. Not now, not ever, not in this country where some people love their guns and those who don't want the power, and that means putting up with their guns.
I admit that this amendment was necessary when the US was a newfound country struggling to be independent, fresh out of a revolution.
Now, why?
On a related point - I'm not expert on the US constitution, but this amendment the gun nuts always hide behind - I tend to agree with those historians who say that their argument is a gross distortion of its original intention. The right to "bear arms", as the words would have been used at the time the consitution was written, had "an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service" (from Wikipedia).
This amendment, it seems to me, concerns the right of people for serve in the military for the defence of their nation, not the right to hoard Uzis and Glocks for their own pleasure or "protection".
Then again, what do I know? We don't even have armed police in my country...