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.
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.
