Our country continues to be plagued by mass shootings. People are being deprived of peace, safety, and even their very lives.
As if that were not tragedy enough, we always quarrel about who and what is to blame. There is no agreement about the cause of the problem. Therefore, agreement about the cure eludes us.
Primarily, each of us is responsible for our actions. People are subject to all sorts of influences, and due consideration must be paid. Nevertheless, the responsibility for a mass shooting falls squarely upon the shoulders of the shooter. It is not society’s fault, the fault of the shooter’s parents, the school system, the fault of the weapon, or anything else other than the shooter. There may be things that can be done to mitigate influences that make people more prone to violence, and these should be examined carefully. We must not, however, excuse individuals from the responsibility for their own actions.
The problem of violent crimes perpetrated against persons in the United States is larger than mass shootings. Far more people are killed, injured, disfigured, or disabled by other kinds of violent crime. All types of violent crime must be included in any discussion about the carnage that is taking place and how to limit it.
No system of laws and security measures is able to completely eliminate the risk that violent crime exposes all of us to. We are an open-handed and good-hearted people. It is only natural that we all want to “do something” to stop the horror that is tearing at the fabric of our society. As long as there are individuals and groups who think resorting to violence to solve problems is justifiable, however, some of us will continue to be killed, maimed, and get hurt.
As a society, we are obsessed with violence. Many of our movies and television shows pander to our fascination with it. Violent entertainment is popular with American audiences, so the entertainment industry gives the public what it wants. Conversely, violent entertainment creates an appetite for more violence. A lot of the video games we play, and allow our children to play, are based on “killing the bad guys.” They desensitize people to the taking of human life. In much of what we watch and play at, violence is the recourse that our “heroes” go to first, rather than the alternative of last resort that it should be.
Our sports have become increasingly violent as well. The fans cheer when an American football player puts a devastating “hit” on an opponent. They cheer again when a fight breaks out between hockey players. Boxing has taken a back seat to kick fighting, mixed martial arts, and toughman contests.
Many other examples could be listed, but your time is limited and so is mine. I am not advocating pacifism. I am saying that all of the above makes people less likely to resist the urge to become violent with someone who annoys them. A society that reverences violence breeds people who do violent things. The cohesiveness of the social order is delicate. Once disrupted, it is difficult to restore.
Guns are just one of many weapons with which people assault each other. They also use knives, bombs, bows and arrows, or bludgeons. In 2019, for example, a man killed eight school children in China with a knife. It was one of many such attacks that have happened there in recent years. Most people can’t have guns in the People’s Republic of China, therefore, the perpetrators use edged weapons or bludgeons instead.
Weapons are inert objects until people use them. They are tools. In some cases they increase the lethality of the force that people use and the distance at which force can be applied. Some weapons are more efficient than others. Guns are able to cause death or serious bodily injury at a greater distance than knives. Guns can fire projectiles faster and more accurately than bows. Regardless, they just lay there and do nothing until a human being picks them up and uses them.
The problem is who we are. The tools we use are incidental to the character of the user. A baseball bat has no brain to think with or heart to feel with. It is designed for sport and commonly available. Then again, it makes an effective club.
What are we to do? Recently, President Biden alleged that the government has ability to regulate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That statement sent the conservative radio and TV talkers up the wall. As usual, he could have been more precise in his language, and he was only half right.
The Second Amendment says (in part) that “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That language might be interpreted as a prohibition against government regulation of that right. If so, President Biden was wrong.
All sorts of constitutional rights, however, are limited by law to keep people from violating the rights of others. The First Amendment guarantees us the “free exercise” of our religion. However, we do not have the right to kill “unbelievers;” even if our religion allows it or commands it. It also protects our freedom to peacefully assemble, but we do not have the right to block others’ essential movement by assembling on a freeway or in front of a hospital emergency room. We have freedom of speech, but we do not have the right to incite others to riot or do violence. Legalese aside, the truth is that when freedoms that are abused they might get taken away, and we must be vigilant to keep that from happening.
It seems that we have the same fight every time there is a mass shooting - or Chicago has a bad weekend. We will continue to have it, over and over, until anti-gun people quit trying to do an “end run” around the Second Amendment. The only solution that will end the argument in favor of those opposed to the private ownership or possession of firearms is to cause the repeal of the Second Amendment. Oh - but they do not have the political support they need to get that done. The bulldog on the front porch is that most Americans want to keep their guns.
In an effort to “do something,” the great minds we send to Washington, D.C. are working on new gun control laws; more stringent than the ones already on the books. Exploiting the opportunity provided by the recent mass killing incidents, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed a Bill that is a Liberal wish list of restrictions on buying and possessing guns. It has been sent to the Senate. At this writing, the Senate just reduced to writing its own Bill, which is purported to be a “bipartisan compromise.” The Senate’s version is supposed to be a milder version of the magnum opus created by the House.[1]
President Biden will sign into law just about any gun control legislation that comes across his desk. He has always been an opponent of the private ownership of firearms.
Alternatives to Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws
Rather than target (no pun intended) guns as a source of violent crime, it may be better to focus on the criminals who commit the crimes. In this way, we put the burden on the lawless, instead of on law abiding citizens. Additionally, it is reasonable to take a look at those in the entertainment industry who often profit from stoking the public’s appetite for violence.
All crimes must be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence to do so. Judicial review boards should be created and empowered to initiate recall proceedings to remove judges who consistently fail to impose sentences, up to the limit of the law, that are commensurate to the harm caused to the victim of the offence. The court system should be sufficiently funded to manage the increased number of cases that would result.
Harsh penalties should be imposed on those who possess, use, or threaten the use of any weapon capable of causing death, disfigurement, or serious bodily injury, during the commission of a crime. Upon conviction for a second offence, offenders should receive more severe sentences including the possibility of life with parole after 25 years’ incarceration. The death penalty should be imposed if a victim dies as a result of the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime, whether the death is intended or accidental.
The appeal process needs to be streamlined. Convicted persons must have the right to appeal to a higher court. However, our current appeal process is ridiculous; especially in death penalty cases.
The police must be fully funded, trained, and equipped. Those who abuse their authority should be punished as individuals. Most cops are good people who serve at considerable risk to protect us. They deserve our support.
It may be argued that these measures will have an unequal impact on some minorities who are already overrepresented in prison populations. The disparate impact on minorities could be mitigated if the poor were given an adequate defense in court. Forced economically to rely on public defenders, they are often “persuaded” to accept plea bargains, even though they may be innocent, by being told that they risk a much more severe sentence if they increase the court’s workload by taking their case to trial.
The law must mandate that all persons who are convicted of a crime involving a weapon must serve their entire sentence in a higher security prison that has armed perimeter patrols, double fences topped by razor wire, armed officers in guard towers, and exterior walls that do not allow egress. They should not be housed in lower security facilities, honor camps, or community corrections settings.
Gang violence is out of control in America. More stringent organized crime laws are needed that mandate the deportation of gang members who are not U.S. citizens, and provide sentence enhancement for gang members convicted of using weapons to commit crimes.
There is a clear correlation between criminal drug trafficking and violent crime. Any person convicted of importing or selling controlled substances, who is not a U.S. citizen, should receive the death penalty. Citizens should receive sentence enhancers if convicted of importing or selling drugs while in possession of a weapon.
The film makers who produce violent movies, TV shows, and video games should be required to precede them with an in-depth explanation of the fact that they are entertainment and not reality. The explanation should include examples of the harm that results from violent behavior and the possible legal consequences to the perpetrator. It should be impossible to view the entertainment without first watching the explanation. It would be no different than requiring cigarette companies to put health warnings on cigarette packages. As was the case with cigarettes, the government should air “infomercials” explaining the harmful outcomes of violent behavior.
Violent sports are a mega million-dollar industry. That industry should be required to provide modified rules, safety equipment, and training designed to prevent injury or death to school and community programs in which the players are 17 years of age or younger. Adult participants in sports that are documented to have caused death or serious bodily injury should be provided with lifetime insurance or sports medicine treatment. Rules should be stringently modified to severely limit the risk of injury to adult competitors. Assaultive players should be barred from play without pay for periods of time that are consistent with the severity of the offence, but not less than two seasons. Professional sports leagues should be required to air infomercials before each game informing the public of the risks to players that devolve from hard-hitting play, and advising them that violence is not acceptable in sports or in everyday life.
Thanks for
listening. Write or call your Senators and Congressmen.
No comments:
Post a Comment