Knuckling Under to the Gun Lobby

With 33 students and faculty killed at Virginia Tech on Monday, you would think that we’d be ready for some reasonable gun laws. You’d be wrong. We’ve been through this so many times before, that everyone should know the drill by now. Incidents like this only give the NRA an excuse to sound the alarm and raise more money for lobbyists.

Instead of questioning the insanity of making guns so readily available to any Tom, Dick, or homicidal South Korean, we have gun nuts suggesting that if more students were packing guns, maybe this never would have happened. As if arming the entire student body would ensure that gun violence on campuses would decrease. Instead of psychoanalyzing Cho Seung-Hui – who is already brain-dead at this point - we ought to be checking the psychiatric records of people crazy enough to think that more guns are the solution to gun violence.

Exactly why is it that every time somebody advocates something like reasonable background checks for all gun sales, cooling off periods, or mandatory safety instruction - in order to help insure that criminals and the mentally disturbed are much less likely to acquire weapons - the same frantic cry always erupts from a certain segment of the gun community, complaining that we are taking away their guns? How could that be? Unless these rabid gun advocates are either criminals, or deranged individuals posing as average citizens?

The facts are clear: Conservative southern states with lax gun laws like Virginia have disproportionately high levels of gun crime, when compared to northeastern states with tougher gun control measures.

According to FBI's Uniform Crime Report, The South - which is also the most populous single region in the Nation - has a disproportionately high percentage of firearm-related murders and aggravated assaults. More specifically, while the South constituted 35 percent of the United States population in 2000, it accounts for 43 percent of murders and 44 percent of aggravated assaults that were firearm-related. In contrast to the Northeast, where there are usually more stringent laws, and which recorded a disproportionately low number of firearm-related murders and aggravated assaults, 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively. This region accounted for 20 percent of the Nation’s population.

In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden. By comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 people in the United States, while there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns. That's nearly four times as many people as were killed on 9-11 who are being killed every year, but don't expect to hear about any war on gun violence. Even Australian Prime Minister John Howard says the latest shooting underscored the problems of a U.S. "gun culture.” While Britain asks, “Will This End 'America's Love Affair with Guns'?” Don't hold your breath.

Every weapon purchased in the US is about 24 times more likely to accidentally kill a person than to save anyone’s life. A gun kept in the home is *43* times more likely to kill a member of the household, or a friend, than to defend against an intruder. Children in the U.S. are 12 times more likely to die from firearm injury than are children in other industrialized nations, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A Criminal Justice Research Center survey of prison inmates reports that only 27% of the adult inmates surveyed reported buying a handgun on the black market, while 69% acquired their handgun(s) from family, friends, private owners (at gun shows), or retail outlets.

The book “Gun Violence: The Real Costs” estimates that the financial cost of gun violence is at least $100 billion annually. That’s enough to insure every man, woman and child who is currently going without health insurance.

I’m tired of hearing, “this is the price of freedom’ when it’s the price of shameless irresponsibility. It’s the price of allowing the NRA to scuttle every chance at reasonable gun laws that comes down the pike. It’s the price of living with a lot of mentally confused gun-nuts, who seem to have mistaken their gun for their penis.

I’m also tired of sleazy politicians who dutifully line up to spit on the graves of the victims in these tragedies, by re-telling the same old lie over and over: that the second amendment mandates every loon, illiterate, and gangster-would-be, should always be able to buy any gun they can afford, without any government interference. The same tired and bogus, ‘it’s our sacred right’ argument that has no basis in law or fact.

“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.” is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless it has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The Supreme Court has stated that today’s militia is the National Guard.

No gun control law brought before the Supreme Court has been overturned on Second Amendment grounds, including several local statutes outlawing handguns. Lower federal courts consistently follow the Miller decision that the Second Amendment does not protect an absolute individual right to keep and bear arms.{90} In U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984), the court states that gun possession is clearly not a fundamental right. In U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255, 1259, cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918 (1976), the court states there is no absolute constitutional right to possess a firearm.

Since the Miller decision, the Supreme Court has declined to hear any case brought on Second Amendment grounds, leading many legal authorities such as retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, Justice David Souter, and the American Bar Association to declare this legal issue settled law.

I'm concerned that our sacred right not to be shot will always be infringed by a privileged class of spoiled gun-owners, who expect the freedom to own a weapon, but without any of the attendant safeguards and responsibilities. The Declaration of Independence says that we all have a God-given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And yet, all our lives will remain in constant jeopardy.

We must all learn to live with the fact that in America, we are 100 times more likely to be shot and killed than in any other country in the world (outside of Iraq). Not because this is the price of freedom, but because – oh gosh - we wouldn’t want to inconvenience gun owners. Our freedom to walk the streets at night, or even feel safe in our homes or classrooms, has been decisively compromised by an obscene proliferation of guns in the hand of the wrong people, and yet there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it, given the power of the gun lobby.

We've seem to have created a privileged class of citizens – more commonly called NRA members - whose inherent right to avoid the proper responsibilities of gun ownership, so far outweighs the more basic right of every American citizen to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ that our only recourse is to hold our breath until the next tragedy.

Which may not be long in coming. The NRA is already working to pass laws that would make even murder perfectly legal. They're called the "Shoot First," "Make My Day," or "Deadly Force" laws, where instead of requiring gun owners who feel threatened to retreat when possible, it allows them to fire at will, regardless of the consequences. Some criminals have already been set free, while others and their lawyers are drooling at the prospect of using the NRA's "Shoot First" law as a legal defense. It’s the next logical step in America’s approach to gun violence.

We license both motor vehicles and their owners - we require training and periodic testing of drivers, and we insist upon mandatory safety measures such as seat belts, air bags, and liability insurance. And yet, all that's required to purchase and use a gun is cash and a bad attitude. Haven't you heard - it’s in the Constitution.

It’s time to stop pretending that most Americans care enough about massacres like Virginia Tech, to demand that anything be done about it. So let’s be more honest than we were after Columbine - because we will never learn our lesson. These periodic blood lettings have become an accepted American tradition. They are more like the sequels to an engaging action movie -though without the steep ticket price. School Massacre VI: The Korean Connection. They only add to the culture of violence, by inspiring more of the same.

So I say, why not change and amend our Constitution to formalize the privileged status of the gun-toting class. Let’s take out that nonsense about 'a well-regulated militia,’ as well as all those other rights that used to be guaranteed by the Constitution. After all, those student’s right to free speech was trumped by Cho Seung-Hui’s right to a gun. And Bush has already annulled just about every other right - including the right to a lawyer, the right not to be tortured, the right to privacy, and habeas corpus.

So let’s be honest with ourselves at least, and make gun ownership the only inalienable and God-given right that anyone has a right to expect in this country. Let’s make every American's convenience in aquiring an unlimited supply of guns and ammo, the entire goal and moral purpose of our country – inasmuch as it already is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blknight18: “It is irresponsible for people to advocate policy changes based on
freak occurrences.”

I wasn’t advocating policy change because of what happened. I was saying that there won’t be any policy change in spite of what happened. A very similar massacre occurred in Australia, which caused them to dramatically re-think their gun laws. But bloodbaths like this one are now an accepted tradition in America. That was my point. It was largely because of the Brady Bill that Democrats lost Congress last time, and they’re not about to do the same thing again. Though Bush would love it if they tried.

Jr.: “Guns are one thing that America has that is preventing complete tyranny. I
believe this is just one more way of whittling away our civil liberties.”

You’re mistaken if you think that your gun is going to stop the government from taking it away. Guns are a fetish in America in that they represent the power over their lives many would like to have, but really don’t. In the same way that Cho Seung-Hui bought a gun and shot 33 people to compensate for his inner sense of powerlessness, many gun owners who feel they have no voice in their corporate government or dead-end corporate jobs, use guns to compensate for their own sense of powerlessness. That’s also why they interpret any attempt to regulate guns as an infringement upon that power. But this gun fetish is an illusion, and a self-defeating form of idolatry.

Hister: “Banning guns would do nothing to solve these types of events.”

I don’t know anyone advocating banning guns, but you’re right. Even though reasonable gun laws - as they exist in more civilized countries - might decrease the overall death rate due to guns, it will not in itself change the culture of violence that exists in America. That can only happen by a spiritual transformation similar to what happened in Rome after the rise of Christianity. The problem is that we have a heretical form of fundamentalist Christianity in America, one that is more compatible with war and violence than with teachings Jesus.

Suomynona: Luke 22:38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He
said to them, “It is enough.” Maybe some of you biblical scholars can tell
me just what our savior meant when he said this.

Jesus’ teaching are very clear regarding the use of violence. He said to turn the other cheek and love your enemies - not gun them down. The incident you quote is exactly the same. Though his disciples took weapons with them on the night Jesus was arrested, he forbade them to use them, saying “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” The message is that even though we may have available to us the means to stike out our enemies through the use of force, we are not to resort to violence, or we become just like them. Paul wrote about “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” If you’ve made a fetish out of your gun(s), you are not living in the power of the Spirit.

Matt: 1) “The study by Arthur Kellermann…has been repeatedly discredited.”

I’m sure the gun nuts have discredited in their own minds, every study that says having a gun in the home is more dangerous than not. Nevertheless, it’s absolutely true.

2) “The fact is, most self-defense uses are either
unreported, or not recorded unless a death or injury results.”

That isn’t a fact – that’s your baseless supposition. Everyone who uses a gun to defend themselves is legally bound to inform the police. If you’re saying that gun owners routinely disobey the laws relating to gun use, then they shouldn’t have guns because they’re not responsible users.

3) “The militia of the United States consists of
all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age”

If you want to march back and forth and pretend you’re in the militia, go right ahead. The reality is that this is 2007 – I’m not in a militia, nor is anybody that I know. The law as determined by the Supreme Court is exactly what I wrote: the militia is the national guard.

4) "Stand Your Ground" law... the victim or
bystander must REASONABLY believe that a violent crime…can be prevented by
force.

Shooting some teenager for trespassing on your property because you believed you were preventing a crime - when you could have just stayed in the house and called police - is really what we’re talking about here. You may think that’s OK, but I call it murder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt again: “guns are used far more to save lives (in over 90% of defensive gun
uses, no shots are fired) than to take them (especially accidentally).

I’m sure that’s what you’d like to believe. But you have nothing to back it up.

Another study at Harvard showed a direct link between gun availability and gun death among children.”

“children living in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership”

But I can site studies all day, and you will keep rejecting them (without offering any facts of your own) because you are immune to the facts. You have an irrational fixation on guns, and that’s why objective facts are not going to change your opinion.

“it's more dangerous to have a fire extinguisher in the house”

Show me a study that says more children have been killed by fire extinguishers than have been saved by them.

“I'm showing you US CODE saying that you and I are both in the militia.”

Under your definition, people over 45 couldn’t buy a gun. The second amendment talks about a “WELL ORGANIZED militia.” The Militia Act of 1903 split the old definition of a militia into two categories – the reserve militia (which is all able-bodied men between 17-45), and the organized militia, which consists of the national guard and naval militia. That’s why the Supreme Court has ruled for the past 75 years that “well organized militia” = national guard.

“Obviously, shooting unarmed teenagers in your front yard would not be
considered "reasonable" in court and you would go to jail.”

Think again. In a typical case, on September 5, 2004, Gary Lee Hill, 24, got into a fight with Amanda Padilla, 19, over a missing purse during a party at Hill's Potter Circle house in Colorado Springs. He got a rifle and ordered her and her friend, Alessandra Ash, out of the house.

The women later returned with Ms. Padilla's boyfriend, John Knott, 19, and Ms. Ash's boyfriend, Anthony Padilla. The four went into Hill's basement, where he was asleep, and Amanda Padilla punched him. That punch opened a gash in Hill's head, and it led to Hill getting a high-powered rifle, which he then went out and fired at the car in which John Knott was now sitting outside the house. Knott was unarmed and he never touched Hill, but he died of a gunshot wound to the back.

Gary Hill was acquitted in 2005 of murder charges after jurors found the shooting fell under the state's "make my day" defense, which allows residents to use deadly force against home intruders. If Hill knew he would have been convicted for shooting Knott in the back, Knott would probably still be alive today. And though he may have gotten off due to the legislative efforts of the NRA, in my book he's still a murderer.

Suomynona again: “A knee jerk response to a tragic situation is just that.”

Frankly, I'm finding this whole attitude that we can’t talk about the gun laws after incidents like this one, to be bizarre and insulting. It’s like saying that you can’t talk about terrorism after 9-11, because after all, that was the first terrorist attack in 10 years, and many more people die in car crashes. It’s bad enough that tragedies like this have become routine in America, but now we can’t even talk about how it might have been prevented? It’s like the NRA is now our politburo. We are all supposed to act as if guns are now sacred, and their availability is never to be talked about or questioned. Screw that. The first thing Bush and McCain said about this tragedy is that they support the second amendment. If that’s not sick, than what is?

Blknight18 again: “Hanchett put up the inflammatory pic and makes a claim that
it was those terrible southerners that made sure there was no law stopping Cho
from purchasing a gun.”

I said that gun violence is worse in states with more liberal gun laws, which is true. Virginia allowed Cho to buy two guns because Virginia is a “shall issue” state, meaning that they don’t spend a lot of time or effort on background checks. They do the bare minimum, because the goal is to get people their guns as quickly and easily as possible. In my state – California – Cho would never have been allowed to purchase a gun. California State law requires all gun buyers to go through a state-based criminal background check in addition to the federal NICS check. This includes checking both state and federal records, in order to prevent criminals and people with mental problems from buying guns.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4/22/07 I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings with some of the things I wrote here – sometimes I go off half-cocked. I really didn’t mean to say that everyone who has a gun is a nut or is homicidal – my dad always had guns, and he loved to go hunting. Like many people, I was upset about what happened, and also frustrated by the fact that, even though I do believe better gun control laws could help to stop some (though certainly not all) of this kind of violence, there is likely no chance for that ever happening in the foreseeable future. I have nothing against responsible people owning guns. (Though I think they can be dangerous and counter-productive, especially if there are children in the house.) But I also believe that, even though many people like to call this a Christian nation, we seem to have put a whole lot more faith in guns and violence, than we’ve put in God.