Recently, the issue of gun control has been a hot button
issue, what with the recent Naval Yard shooting that occurred a little over two
weeks ago. The headlines seem to
be saturated every three or four months with similar stories of guns getting
into the hands of some psychologically disturbed individual who should have
never had a gun in the first place.
We go back and forth on the issue of gun control and what it means
exactly. Some argue that their
Second Amendment rights are being trampled. Others argue that without more stringent legislation, that
our society is doomed to recycle tragedy.
I believe I sit on the right side of history in saying that we need
tighter gun control laws and better quality control.
In reading a New Yorker article, “A Few Simple Ideas About
Gun Control” by Adam Gopnik, it is clear that America has not done enough in
preventing firearm shootout tragedies. The truth lies in the fact that setting out sandbags
and closing bridges will be inefficient for preventing the catastrophe of a
tsunami. According to Gopnik,
effective gun regulation is determined by what has worked in Canada and
Australia. These are places with
effective, stringent gun laws, where people also do not feel as touchy about
their personal rights despite the strict regulation.
Gopnik also sites the book, Reducing Gun Violence in
America by Daniel W. Webster, in his ideas
for stricter gun regulation. The
suggestions are simple and straightforward. First, allow the FBI to have ten days, instead of the mere
three, in order to conduct background checks. Can efficient quality control, in keeping psychotics and
criminals from having firearms, get accomplished in half the time it should
take? I think not. Another suggestion is in passing
legislation more quickly in order to keep guns away from people who are violent
and mentally unstable. Or how
about we keep detailed records of people with restraining and protective orders
and place them in a ‘high risk’ category?
Violent, abusive, and psychologically unstable individuals should not
have guns. Period.
Other ideas according to Webster and Gopnik include having
better funded research into what actually puts an end to gun violence. Also, there should be more
investigation into delayed triggers and having active bans on assault
weapons. Nobody should have
military grade weapons in their home.
Nobody. It’s too bad,
however, that the NRA and gun enthusiasts pooh-pooh such ideas as childish
nonsense. Is preventing senseless
and preventable death and carnage a childish idea? What’s more important, supposed ‘inalienable rights’ or a
human being’s life? If gun
enthusiasts cannot practice restraint, then it should be given to them. I think ‘smart gun’ technology makes
sense. Maybe then, gun owners
would fire their gun in the true case of an emergency. If pro-gun supporters do not support
proper storage, then we need some way of preventing the senseless death and
carnage that come as a result of guns.
And this tragedy and death just keeps repeating itself. [i]
What propels my thought is twenty years ago, we did not hear
about such incidents. The
Columbine shooting in 1999 appears to be the kettle starter in a slue of
incidents involving gun violence and safety. The severity and frequency have gotten worse within the last
fifteen years. There was the Sandy
Hook shooting last December.
Before that the list of headline news gun violence incidents include the
Sandy Hook Elementary School (Newtown, CT.) shooting in December 2012; Sikh
Temple shooting (Oak Creek,WI.) in August 2012; the Aurora (CO.) movie theater
shooting in July 2012; the shooting in Tucson which nearly killed Congresswoman
Gabrielle Giffords (Tucson, AZ.); the Fort Hood army base (TX.) shooting in
November 2009; the Virginia Tech shooting in April 2007. These are merely the major tragedies
that I mention. There are many
more. And what started it all was
the 1999 school shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado.[ii]
The fact is that the madness has to stop.
Without taking dramatic action quickly, we will just keep saturating our
headlines in the blood of its victims. This is especially true when it comes to
children and the accidental deaths that are the result of children having
access to firearms.
According to the New York Time’s article, “Children and Guns:
The Hidden Toll” by Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, accidental gun deaths get
spotty reporting. One reason for
this is that in many states, death statistics are not accessible by the public. Another reason is due to the fact that
some states report accidental gun fatalities as ‘homicides’. Then, in turn, the national statistics
are lower than they should be. The
NRA cites this as reason for not having stricter storage laws. They report that children are able to
die more easily in a car accident or by ingesting poison. The reality is, however, that
accidental death firearm data is skewed.
The idea behind reporting child gun death as ‘homicide’ is that often it
involves an adult’s negligence at leaving a gun or their child(ren)
unattended. That notion is also
refuted in the fact that most accidental gun deaths involving children are
directly at the hands of another child.
According to statistics, that look at 259 gun deaths of
children under 15 by states that have public death data, the third most common
age for a child shooter is three years old. This should be shocking enough to fuel the argument toward
stringent gun storage regulation and law.
However, gun enthusiasts and the NRA take the inaccurate data of
accidental gun incidents involving children to argue that gun storage is a mute
point. Though they advocate safe
storage, the issue of self-defense trumps the safety of our nation’s
children. Instead of infringing on
the right to bear arms, gun lobbyists advocate education to children about gun
safety. Pro-gun advocates cite a
lowered accidental gun fatality rate, within the last thirty years, as proof
that gun education alone is the key.
However, to refute this point is a study in Atlanta by a Dr.
Arthur Kellermen. In this study,
children, all boys, were put in a room with a .38-caliber handgun hiding in a
drawer. Three quarters of the
children found the gun and two-thirds of the children actually touched the gun. Only one child left the gun alone and
told an adult; that child was then ridiculed by his peers. In this case, over 90 percent of the
boys had received gun education.
In addition to this study, the lowered accidental firearm fatality is a
direct result of the vast improvement of emergency care along with the fact
that less adults keep guns in their homes. This combined with the fact of
having flawed and inconsistent data on accidental child gun deaths is reason
enough to invalidate conclusions made by pro-gun enthusiasts.
Do you have children?
I would venture on a limb to say that no parent would want their child
to share the fates of Noah McGuire (14), Matthew Dwyer (5), Tristan Underhill
(2), or Alex Whitfield (11) who all died in accidental gun incidents. All of these deaths were preventable.[iii] It is clear and simple. Parents should store their guns out of
sight and reach from their children.
Our nation is not in the midst of a violent civil war or genocide. So what, I ask, is the reason for
leaving a firearm out in the open?
Is a person’s inherent perception of safety and well-being more
important than the life of a child?
I think not.
In summary, I truly believe that rapid gun enthusiasts need
to look into the face of their children, grandchildren, or any child for that
matter. Look deep into the child’s eyes and ask yourself if that life is less
important than your arguments against stricter gun regulation. I dare you. I find it ironic that individuals who purport to being
pro-life are usually also pro-death penalty, pro-war, and pro-gun. Isn’t that ironic; dont'cha think? Well I know one thing. I am pro-human. And I think the human population of the
United States of America deserves better when it comes to gun safety and
regulation.
[iii] Luo, Michael and McIntire, Mike. “Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll”.
New York Times. 29 September 2013.
late ed.: 1, 24-25. Print.
Humanistically yours,
~R~
Humanistically yours,
~R~
Addendum: Literally, as I wrote this today, a woman from Stamford, CT. drove to Washington DC with a baby in the backseat. She tried to ram barricades outside the White House, causing a shootout and standoff on Capitol Hill which resulted in her death. Luckily, the streets were less crowded with traffic and people, as we are in the midst of a government shutdown (it's the third day already) because immature, selfish people don't want the US to have public health insurance. Tom Clancy (RIP) would not have been able to write a better story! Sometimes, reality is much stranger than fiction!
No comments:
Post a Comment