Reading more about the recent shooting tragedy, I realize that a ban on handguns is unlikely because most Americans, anywhere from a half to two thirds, cite the second amendment right to bear arms as something they cannot part with. It's intrinsic to their sense of self-identity as Americans.Considering the second amendment in historical perspective, we see that it was written at a time America was a frontier state in which there was only minimal civil authority and protection in place. Thus, understandably, there was a clear justification for an individual to assert he had a right to protect himself. Clearly, however, society has changed since the late eighteenth century and the justification for the right to bear arms to defend oneself no longer makes sense. There are few if any areas of desolate wilderness and total lawlessness.
But that fact is overlooked by advocates of the right to bear arms. From their perspective, it simply doesn't matter that the environment and society has changed. Of course it has they would acknowledge, but that cannot and should not affect the inviolability of their right to bear arms. Any concession of this principle would undermine it, hence its inviolability.
In this regard, they are correct, and you cannot argue with them, or rather their essentialist argument. Furthermore, without a majority of Americans opposing their claim to a right to bear arms, their position will prevail.
Looking at this issue in a larger perspective, we can see that various areas of the world hold on tenaciously to ideas and customs which puzzle outsiders. To outsiders these ideas and customs don't make sense, but to the people who hold them, they do; moreover, they define their identity. Thus, to part with such an idea and custom that defines you is something that is difficult or that cannot be conceived. In effect, you cannot ask people to change a policy or practice or custom, which they regard as intrinsic to who they are.
Only the cumulative effect of negative consequences or the slow process of gradual education or a political upheaval will result in change. In United States, I would surmise that the former two factors will eventually change the hearts and minds of people, make them consider changing their identity and their views on the issue of restricting and then banning handguns altogether. Practically speaking, for now the most that can be expected in terms of legislation about handgun possession and ownership in United States is that the pressure to impose more restrictions will increase.
Personally, I can play only a small part in this contentious issue of handgun control in America, adding my voice to the chorus of others informing readers in a manner that isn't accusatory or condescending, but thought provoking.
1 comment:
Here is a New York Times editorial addressing the tragic shooting. It address the reluctance to take initiative to address the problem of gun violence. Note, we have learned since this editorial was printed, the weapons should not have been able to be purchased by the murderer.
April 19, 2007
Editorial
The Silence of Politicians
There are myriad questions from the evolving tragedy at Virginia Tech. One is how such a gravely disturbed student as this killer could raise heightened concern among the authorities over a year ago, yet manage to proceed unhindered to take 32 lives. But no less pertinent is the question of how, after detailed tracking of the guns purchased for the ghastly spree, the lethal empowerment of such a troubled individual can somehow be pronounced entirely legal under the laws of a civilized nation.
But it certainly seems legal.
The guns wielded by Cho Seung-Hui were traced through the laissez-faire weapons marts of Virginia and found to be legitimately obtained. So, case closed. At least according to most of the nation’s political leadership, so studiously ducking the morning-after question of whether anything serious can be done, or least proposed, about such an appalling situation. The victims at Virginia Tech represent a mere tenth of 1 percent of the 30,000 gunshot deaths each year.
Yet the implicit, hardly sorrow-free lesson for the nation is that beyond the usual calls for prayers and closure, there’s no sense these days for a politician, particularly one running for president, to get into the risky business of even talking about the runaway gun problem.
No one who tracked the last headline-consuming gun tragedies — the Columbine high school massacre and the Washington, D.C., sniper murders — can be surprised as political leaders slide off their obligation to propose answers, or at least candidly discuss the woeful status quo of gun violence.
After those two sprees, possible remedies were proposed. But none were passed as the gun lobby cracked its whip in Washington. The most that happened were delays in the passage of an egregious proposal, signed a safe time afterward by President Bush, that brazenly denied gunshot victims and plagued cities the right to sue the gun industry for negligence.
Politicians should at least have the guts to tell the nation that retrogression is the state of gun control in America. But Congress’s new Democratic majority is a study in caginess, its leaders obviously mindful of the warning — issued by Terry McAuliffe, the former party chairman who is now a principal in Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — to avoid the subject as a third-rail loser. The question in the ’08 campaign is whether major candidates will dare to speak of Virginia Tech as anything more than an occasion to express grief.
Post a Comment