The overall trend in firearm fatalities has been declining in this country in recent history (see chart). Nonetheless, it appears that in recent months there is some spec
tacular countervailing anecdotal evidence. There was April's terrible shootings at Virginia Tech (did they ever fully straighten out the chain of events in that episode?). A month later there was a multiple-fatality sniper attack in Idaho. And now recently there has been another serial shooting in Wisconsin. One must admit, there seems to be something of an upsurge in this kind of violence these days. Boston last year saw quite a bit of gun and gang-related violence. But these incidents seem to involve many fatalities coming from one shooter, and seem to occur in suburban or rural areas.Now, I am not going into the details of the gun debate, except to say that European friends that I have spoken with cannot comprehend how guns exist at all in common American society. I am not as opposed to guns as all that, although I think some restrictions cannot hurt, as long as sporting and hunting needs can be met. Likewise I think that some of the gun lobby's arguments for guns are a little flimsy at best. An armed populace will never really stand up to a tyrannical government, especially as that government has more of the guns. The average Iraqi household has several machine guns in the residence. This neither stopped Saddam Hussein from using his greater firepower to rule the country, nor did it stop civil chaos and crime from running rampant after his fall. Also, I have a feeling that many of those who have guns for "self-defense" are probably a greater danger than the criminals that it is meant to deter.
At the same time, Washington DC' s gun ban was obviously a joke. So is the mess of gun legislation in both the federal and state levels of government. Arkansas forbids guns in church. Alaska allows free purchase and carrying of weapons. Florida forbids carrying of guns except when concealed. Massachusetts requires background checks, official safety training, a purchase permit, and has four separate levels of ownership permits, as well as disallowing anyone from other states to transport guns through the state. On top of that, different states recognize different licenses. And then there are federal laws, of varying levels of usefulness (it is illegal for illegal immigrants to own firearms ... how helpful). Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would bother with this hassle to even legally carry a gun.
Some honest discussion of gun regulation would probably be useful, but then so would honest discussion about many issues in this country. Frankly, I think in terms of mass-shootings we need to look past gun issues and address the reasons why people are driven to these acts of destruction. It seems that mental health care in this country just isn't at the standard it should be, and is not reaching people who sorely need it the most. Likewise, sometimes one wonders if this the dark side to the suburban culture. Young and/or disturbed people who live closeted lives in artificial communities, and who live through consumerism and media products seem to be prone to some wild and dangerous behavior. And I'm not talking just about America. Take a look at Japan and its suicide obsession.
(Charts by Economist.com)
1 comment:
Switzerland requires in their constitution that all men have not only military training, but also possess an automatic rifle with ammunition in their house at all times. Living it Switzerland, the country with the lowest crime rate in the World supposedly, I realised that gun ownership is something that requires maturity both of the individual and of the culture. Switzerland is such a mature culture with reserved cultured mature people. The United States is far from such a culture. If anything, gun ownership in the United States is merely a relic of the frontier culture in which gun ownership surely was required for survival. The middle ground, where the United States currently resides, is not a fun place to be. I believe that the right to bear arms should be removed from the US constitution. The federal government should regulate weapon possession only in so far as they can have profound effects on interstate commerce (which for all intents and purposes is not at all) while possession of weapons can then be left to the States to regulate. Frontier societies like Alaska legitimately merit firearms. DC certainly does not need any sort of firearms, while Virginians deserve hunting rifles and hunting shotguns only for hunters who are mature, upstanding citizens.
Post a Comment