Second of Two Parts

For Part 1, click here.

Another understandable, albeit less reasonable, concern on the part of the gun lobby is the worry that arises from requiring universal background checks, an idea that strikes gun rights advocates like the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre as equivalent to a gun registry. If the government knows who has guns, the argument goes, they will know where to go to confiscate those guns. But let’s consider the conceptual difference between a universal background check and a gun registry. The registry would require all people purchasing a gun to register that gun with the government. A background check, however, might only require that anyone purchasing a gun is checked against a list of terror suspects, convicted criminals, and so on. One method requires the government to actively track responsible gun owners and put everyone into the same database, while the other exemplifies the idea that anyone can be allowed to own a gun unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Certainly, the background check method comes loaded with potential privacy issues. Are we to add people diagnosed with mental disorders to a list in violation of doctor-patient confidentiality? Could the government use the background checks as a means of identifying gun owners, thus setting up a de facto registry? These are worthy questions. We should ask them – but let’s not let logistical challenges deter us from the fundamental issue of putting a triage system in place that will at least sort out the responsible gun owners from the irresponsible ones. Considering that of 142 guns possessed by mass shooters in the past 30 years, “more than three quarters were obtained legally,” it is high time that we revisit the gun control laws, both current laws and the proposed laws so staunchly opposed by the NRA. (Source: Mother Jones)

But wait!

Second Amendment!

If you deny guns to one, you deny them to all!

Not quite. To the Second I offer the Ninth: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Although the legal ramifications of the Ninth Amendment may be contentious, its core idea is clear: The Constitution isn’t the be-all, end-all list of the people’s rights. Surely then the right to personal safety is one that contextualizes the right to bear arms? If it doesn’t, consider scenarios in which we apply the NRA’s slippery slope argument. If we deny driving licenses to drunk drivers, children, untrained drivers and drivers with physical limitations, isn’t it possible that we might deny licenses to everyone? Or how about medical licenses…why should we infringe on people’s freedom by denying them a medical license for whatever reason? Isn’t the solution to bad diagnoses more diagnoses by more doctors, trained and untrained alike?

Why have licenses at all for anything? The argument can be made that any licensing requirement violates one civil right or another. The chaotic scenario that emerges highlights the absurdity of the NRA’s reasoning. I fully agree with the contention that laws, by themselves, accomplish nothing. I would be happy to discuss alternative solutions rooted in an anarchist social order. However, considering that such a social order is not a realistic possibility, we have to recognize that, in a society of law and order such as ours, it falls to legislation to provide the blueprint for action.

Some, like the NRA leadership, seem to find dead gun violence victims – dead children! – to be an acceptable price to pay for the Second Amendment freedom enacted as an absolute. Beyond the callow heartlessness of this stance is the fact that no freedom is ever absolute in practice: One person’s freedom ends where another begins. If we consider the First Amendment freedom of speech, for example, we generally acknowledge limiting scenarios such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. Similarly, while the Constitution grants the right to bear arms, it still falls to the body politic to clarify how that right is enacted within the context of our rights and privileges, such as personal safety, that we all enjoy.

More Than a Negative Proposition

When it comes to guns, here is the rub: A gun owner only is responsible until he or she isn’t. A moment’s bad judgment. A lapse in attention. An emotional breakdown. As fallible humans, we are prone to mistakes and psychological disturbances. While we obviously can’t prepare for every eventuality, and we shouldn’t go mad trying, nevertheless it is reasonable to ask for proof of responsibility from gun owners, much as we do from drivers, from doctors, for any activity that holds the potential of causing injury or death. It is equally reasonable to consider diverse tools, such as micro-stamping serial numbers on bullets to help law enforcement deal with the illegal use and trafficking of firearms – provided that safeguards are in place to preserve a balance between security and civil rights. Obviously, criminals will evade the law. That is the definition of a criminal. That doesn’t relieve us from the obligation of making it difficult for anyone with malicious intent to unlawfully and, most importantly, immorally use a gun. In this respect, let’s reevaluate gun control as more than a negative proposition. Let it also reflect positive efforts to create a consistently conceived and enforced framework that enables good behavior and discourages bad behavior, preferably before it happens.

It boils down to trust. Gun owners, who ironically display little trust in government or social solutions beyond vague talk of mental health and media violence, ask us to trust them to be responsible. Fine. Let’s trust…but given all these stories of gun violence from individuals who might not normally be considered threatening, let’s also verify just as we do with any other dangerous activity. California is on the right track by requiring prospective gun owners to obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate prior to purchasing or acquiring a handgun. Florida…not so much.

Again, the discussion isn’t about expansive gun bans, except for certain classes of weapons. As far as I know, no politician or elected leader is talking about banning all guns or revoking the Second Amendment. People who want to buy a gun can get a permit (or not, depending on their state’s laws), walk into any gun store or show, and do so. The NRA leadership and its supporters are arguing against a problem that simply doesn’t exist. In the process, they distract from the very real and very personal problem of gun violence.

A sensible national discussion on gun policy has to begin with research, data, information, and that means increasing gun violence research for both the CDC and other entities. If we don’t understand the way things are, we can’t move forward towards the way we’d like things to be. Reporters for Mother Jones state, “…there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet, 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. In 2012 alone there have been seven mass shootings and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.” Part of the discussion should include mental health and cultural factors underlying violence. We clearly need practical measures as well on the level of the physical process of making and selling guns.

NRA Clouds Our Perspective

Next, we must not allow the NRA to hijack the discussion and inhibit a reasonable balance between gun ownership rights and public safety needs. Their influence has subverted the political process and muddied our perceptions of gun violence. For example, the obsessively-repeated notion that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns may not be realistic. As a Mother Jones investigation into mass shooting concludes, “Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings we studied in our investigation has been stopped this way—even as the nation has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of recent laws has made it easier than ever for ordinary citizens to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.” Furthermore, “Attempts by armed citizens to stop shooters are rare. At least two such attempts in recent years ended badly, with the would-be good guys gravely wounded or killed.” Adding the complications for police who, at a crime scene, would have to sort out the armed good guys from the bad, and even trained cops can hit innocent bystanders during a shootout, and the idea of good guys with guns becomes more fantastical than plausible.

Finally, attention must be paid to gun manufacturers themselves, the crime profiteers whose business proposition is to increase the supply of guns and mathematically increase the odds of guns reaching the wrong people. The consumer approach to weapons, the profit-driven motivation to grow the business by selling to more customers, works against a safe society. What if firearms were only manufactured on an as-needed basis instead of mass produced? What if firearms were respected for the deadly instruments that they are, instead of romanticized, fetishized,and marketed? We should discuss the business model used by the gun manufacturing industry to produce and promote firearms.

For any discussion to happen, however, we need to make an effort to dampen the histrionics. This applies to the “more guns” crowd, of course. It should apply equally to gun control advocates who, rightly and wrongly, tend to be perceived as closed-minded zealots. If gun rights advocates feel they are being unfairly demonized, perhaps it is an indication that the need for more listening and less sloganeering applies to every side of the debate. For a problem this serious and tragic…can’t we all just get along?

Assistant Editor Frédérik Sisa is the Page's resident art critic as well as editor of The Fashionoclast. His personal blog is inkandashes.net, and he can be reached at fsisa@thefrontpageonline.com.