THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, June 26, 1994 TAG: 9406230397
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DAWSON MILLS
DATELINE: 940626 LENGTH: Long
But there are some issues where I must break ranks with my conservative colleagues.
{REST} Gun control, for one.
I'm for it. The sooner the better.
Passage of the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons gives me hope that the pendulum of public opinion has finally started to swing in favor of it, and that the gun lobby and the NRA no longer strike terror in the hearts of lawmakers.
But I wonder why it has taken so long. Is it because the gun-toting, macho image is too tightly woven into the American mystique? Or because too many women, and others, seeing the tidal wave of crime and violence that seems to be engulfing our nation, simply don't trust the authorities to provide for their safety and protection?
Perhaps some were surprised by the recent revelation that, in 1992, there were almost 1,000 incidents involving handguns. I wasn't. The statistics have been moving inexorably in that direction for years. In countries like the United States, and the Philippines that I remember from the 1960s as a boy, which, in terms of firearms, resembled the wild, wild West, how could it be otherwise? What, really, do you expect from a country awash in a sea of almost totally unregulated weapons? Do we have a right to be surprised that, for some categories of citizens, the most likely cause of death is firearm-related homicide?
Then look at nations as diverse as the United Kingdom, Japan or Singapore, with a small number of guns per capita, and look at the difference. Whether we want to be like these widely differing nations in other ways is immaterial. By virtually eliminating guns from the population, they eliminate the attendant problems which we, as Americans, know only too well.
The first line of defense for unlimited access to these instruments of death, injury, pain and suffering is a constitutional one, based upon the Second Amendment. We hear it so often from the gun lobby and its supporters that we know it by heart.
``. . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''
But why do we persist in ignoring the first part of that amendment?
``A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . '' Emphasis mine.
Now it begins to make sense. For the words we are reading were written in a newly emerging nation, still poor in its humble beginnings, and impoverished by its war for independence. Or unable to afford a large standing army like the established European powers of that era.
The young nation recognized that its ability to defend itself from tyranny, within or without, lay in the readiness of its citizen-soldiers to take up arms and defend their precious liberties, should the need arise. As they had just done against the Crown. As part of a well-regulated militia.
If those who, today, mount the ramparts to keep and bear arms were willing to go to one drill weekend a month, and two weeks of active duty for training each summer, as part of the Guard or Reserves, and submit to the training and discipline that being part of a militia (i.e., a military unit) entails, then I would have no trouble with it at all. But that, as we all know, is not the case.
The three principal domestic manufacturers of cheap handguns produce a quarter of a million ``Saturday Night Specials'' a year. Gun advocates raise their voices to defend the ``right'' to own and traffic in these weapons, good only for shooting one's fellow man. One of the most popular styles of revolver is so prone to accidental discharge if dropped that its owners are advised to carry it only with an empty chamber next to the firing pin. Many don't, and bear the scars to prove it, as do some who merely had the misfortune of being close by.
Our police and medical authorities tell of the bloodbath all this creates. So, with increasing frequency, do our teachers. Innocent children, as well as adults, are killed by random shots and ricocheting bullets. Psychotics lay waste to fast-food restaurants, schools and offices, facilitated by unfettered access to instruments of deaths.
Maybe the slogan is true. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. But people sure do kill people with guns.
Doesn't any of this concern us? Shouldn't it scare us? Wake us up?
It has certainly scared the Germans, Japanese and other foreigners, who perceive their tourists and students being gunned down amid a sea of armed lawlessness and vigilantism, from Florida to Louisiana to California. From sea to shining sea. But is that shine from the sun, or the glint of gunmetal and chrome-plated pistols?
It is not just the criminal element taking advantage of our unlimited quantity of firearms that concerns me, scary though that is. In the hands of the average, usually law-abiding citizen, they are equally deadly.
I cringe at the thought of a middle-aged housewife, or an accountant, or a cab driver trying to get into a shootout with an armed assailant. The assailant is ready. He (or, increasingly, she) knows what he's prepared to do. The assailant has the element of surprise, a lack of scruples, and probably greater familiarity with a firearm all working in his or her favor. It's not the showdown at the O.K. Corral. It's no contest. It's an invitation to a slaughter. It's fearful to be around, as even bystanders are at risk.
Gun advocates will, invariably, trot out an example where an average citizen has bested an armed assailant. But statistics tell a different story. A citizen's gun is more likely to kill or injure its owner, a friend or relative, a child or an innocent stranger than it is to foil an attack.
I've recently watched a young kitten, newly arrived in our home, carve out his place in this world. I've marveled at how this young animal is so programmed to be confident and aggressive, at times attacking the other cats, and even the humans. His instincts are well-honed for survival in a hostile world.
I believe we're, each of us, a lot like that kitten. It was Voltaire, I think, who observed that if man were totally rational, he'd never get out of bed in the morning. But we're not totally rational. We, too, are programmed for survival. Given, at times, to aggression, anger and violence. It is our higher moral sense, and the thin veneer of civilization, that keeps those impulses in check. Most of the time.
Ready access to a firearm has turned many a domestic quarrel, or traffic incident, or argument, into a homicide. And an otherwise unremarkable citizen into a murderer.
Of course, it is true that other means can be used to inflict violence. And will. Our nature, again. But did you ever read of a drive-by knifing, or a deranged patron or ex-employee mowing down a score of people with a club?
We accept without question that certain items simply cannot, for the common good, be allowed in private hands. Your neighbor can't own a tank. Even a weapons exporter can't traffic in H-bombs. But guns are OK.
I'm not too worried about a foreign invader or a future administration taking actions to restrict our liberty that I would have to rise up, in arms, to resist. I'm more concerned about those futures that are being, and will continue to be, snuffed out because of our irrational penchant for guns. by CNB