Image from Pixabay on Pexels.com (CC0 license)

Guns v. People

Few issues rupture the United States like the role of guns in society. Every shooting by or of a police officer, every school with shattered children, every church with fewer souls begs the question: Why must it be like this?

On Valentine’s Day 2018, another massacre occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School — the 30th this year. Seventeen innocents lost their lives to a young man — a former classmate — armed with an AR-15 and multiple magazines of ammunition.

SETTING the STAGE

When Amendment 2 of the United States Constitution was ratified in 1791, the Atlantic-hugging country and her people knew a very different world than the coast-spanning empire of 2018. From under the boot but not the shadow of George III, tyranny of governance remained an encompassing fear. An armed, well-regulated, militia revolt (and the aid of France) led to independence. The sensible course of action was to enshrine such institutions in the Constitution.

In the passing of 227 years, those “well-regulated militia” became the National Guard. A civil war left 620,000 fellow citizens dead. The very definition of “citizen of the United States” found itself rewritten, by blood, in multiples — as did citizens’ rights. Much of this evolution can be traced to our founders’ intent, most elegantly summarized by Thomas Jefferson:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Yet, despite the arguments of strict constructionists, the original intent of Amendment 2 morphed over time by decision of the courts and the evolution of society.

the TRIAL BEGINS ANEW

Viewing the debate surrounding guns and rights as a dichotomy establishes an immediate fallacy. Thus, the cliche of people, not guns, killing people is not only misguided but offensive to the victims of gun violence. A similar ignorance is shown in a total abolitionist stance.

To build a case beneficial to the entire citizenry of the United States, this requires an honest framework built on empirical evidence. Extreme positions on either side must be rejected from the outset. Neither will banning all guns nor expanding all ownership and carry boundaries create sensible limitations on gun violence. How to begin?

BASICS of a MEANINGFUL RESOLUTION

1. Enough individuals from each side of the debate acknowledge the multi-faceted nature of the issue and agree to reach a resolution.
2. Change the optics from control and prescription to safety and prevention.
3. Ensure facts weigh more than opinions, and any proposed changes reflect this.
4. The Constitutional rights of all citizens are respected, but the most vulnerable citizens receive exceptional consideration. (If one thinks the Constitutional rights of citizens have not been weighted by society and the courts, review the historical intersections of the Commerce Clause, Amendment 10, and Amendment 14 — or join the military.)
5. Come to the realization that the hardest elements of such a process are those which cannot be legislated (e.g. individual civic responsibility, prioritization of safety and prevention efforts by public health and public safety officials, or the public trust invested in taking up appropriate legislation).
6. Accept that no one wins by maintaining an unacceptable status quo. Such only drives division in communities and allows further violence through inaction.

the TWO LARGEST FACTS

While a new balance must be struck regarding Constitutional rights and will involve compromise on both sides, two distinct, empirically-proven facts mean that higher and uniform federal standards for gun safety and gun violence prevention must be established. Those two facts are:

“When economist Richard Florida took a look at gun deaths and other social indicators, he found that higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness didn’t correlate with more gun deaths.” — German Lopez

States with the stronger laws aimed at preventing gun violence and promoting gun safety experience markedly fewer gun deaths than those without such laws.

Map built from a study in the journal Pediatrics and statistics from the CDC

States with higher rates of gun ownership experience higher rates of gun deaths.

If need of convincing remains that these statistics mean something on this issue, consider the amount of spending done on Amendment 2 issues.

a RENDERING

Simply, more guns do not make a citizenry safer. The devastating potential for loss due to private possession of particular types of firearms is now indefensible. The legal framework, by which current safety and prevention systems operate, limps along: a holey, patchwork sieve for exploitation. And, through the same filter runs the blood of too many fellow citizens.

Why must it be like this?

We allow it.