Our Freedoms, Our Lives
Tuesday April 17, 2007
Response to: Does America Value Gun Rights More Than Students?
As was the case with the Columbine High School shooting, some leaders are looking at the Virginia Tech massacre from yesterday with an eye for larger policy issues.
My colleague, Deborah White, sums up what will almost certainly be the prevailing progressive response to Virginia Tech: "Does America value gun rights more than students?" To which I can only answer: Of course not.
I've seen this before. After the September 11th attacks, political leaders on both sides of the aisle adopted what has become known as the "spirit of 9/11" and worked together to, well, violate human rights on a global scale. The question then was: "Does America value civil liberties more than American lives?" And the answer then and now is: Of course not.
Some of us differ with respect to the issue of when life begins and when life ends, but about living, breathing human beings there should be no disagreement. Nothing is more important to us than human lives, and although sometimes (as in cases of ill-conceived war) we fail to protect or even make ourselves aware of that which is most important to us, it would not be fair to say that we don't care about human lives.
But there is more to a human life than keeping someone breathing. There is autonomy, agency, conscience, freedom--there are things that give life meaning, and protecting these things is part of protecting human life.
Anyone who has followed this site knows that I have mixed feelings about the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, but I know enough about our history to know that the false dilemma of "your freedom or your child's life" seldom creates good policy. When we are considering restrictive new laws, and especially when we are considering violating the Bill of Rights, we should never do so in a spirit of terror. That is how all totalitarianism comes into being.
Do we really imagine that those who elected despots in the past were so stupid, so naive, that they did not realize the risks of what they were doing? But they felt that their very lives and the lives of their children were at stake, and they gave power to those who claimed to be able to protect them. Driven by fear, they took a calculated risk that their circumstances might have actually become worse, and their circumstances did. That is a forgivable mistake, but it is also a very dangerous mistake.
Deborah concludes her blog entry with a series of questions:
If we ever decide to revise or subvert the Second Amendment, we should do so after careful consideration of the consequences. We should look at other countries that have abolished gun rights, and determine whether the overall effect on the crime rate was positive or negative. We should ask whether there are any less restrictive steps that we can take to protect student safety. We should, in short, be vigilant with respect to our constitutional rights--and we should be highly skeptical of politicians who ask us not to be. The alternative, as we have seen in the years since the September 11th attacks, is to put our faith in policies that may be as ineffective as they are restrictive.
However we feel about these issues, let's acknowledge that gun rights supporters do not love gun violence, and that those who oppose post-9/11 civil liberties violations do not love terrorism. We love our relatively open society with its Bill of Rights and its democratic tradition, and while we emphasize different freedoms, different constitutional protections, none of us want to lose that society. We must be vigilant in protecting it. Sometimes, in times of national tragedy, we will be tempted not to protect it--and demonized if we try. But many thousands have died to protect our rights; the least we can do is be conscientious stewards of their legacy.
Full coverage:
As was the case with the Columbine High School shooting, some leaders are looking at the Virginia Tech massacre from yesterday with an eye for larger policy issues.
My colleague, Deborah White, sums up what will almost certainly be the prevailing progressive response to Virginia Tech: "Does America value gun rights more than students?" To which I can only answer: Of course not.
I've seen this before. After the September 11th attacks, political leaders on both sides of the aisle adopted what has become known as the "spirit of 9/11" and worked together to, well, violate human rights on a global scale. The question then was: "Does America value civil liberties more than American lives?" And the answer then and now is: Of course not.
Some of us differ with respect to the issue of when life begins and when life ends, but about living, breathing human beings there should be no disagreement. Nothing is more important to us than human lives, and although sometimes (as in cases of ill-conceived war) we fail to protect or even make ourselves aware of that which is most important to us, it would not be fair to say that we don't care about human lives.
But there is more to a human life than keeping someone breathing. There is autonomy, agency, conscience, freedom--there are things that give life meaning, and protecting these things is part of protecting human life.
Anyone who has followed this site knows that I have mixed feelings about the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, but I know enough about our history to know that the false dilemma of "your freedom or your child's life" seldom creates good policy. When we are considering restrictive new laws, and especially when we are considering violating the Bill of Rights, we should never do so in a spirit of terror. That is how all totalitarianism comes into being.
Do we really imagine that those who elected despots in the past were so stupid, so naive, that they did not realize the risks of what they were doing? But they felt that their very lives and the lives of their children were at stake, and they gave power to those who claimed to be able to protect them. Driven by fear, they took a calculated risk that their circumstances might have actually become worse, and their circumstances did. That is a forgivable mistake, but it is also a very dangerous mistake.
Deborah concludes her blog entry with a series of questions:
Why are colleges and universities not as prepared as American high schools for guns on campuses?Because colleges were not victimized by the high-profile school shooting sprees of the 1990s.
Why have colleges and universities not enacted tough, zero tolerance policies for guns on campuses?Most colleges do have something approaching a zero tolerance policy on firearms, but such policies have little effect on spree shootings. I am aware of no school shooting in which the perpetrator brought the murder weapon to school in advance, just to see what would happen.
And why, in God's name, did VTU not proceed into full, immediate lockdown, as any high school would have done?Because VTU administrators were surprised. I am not confident that I would have done any better in dealing with the situation.
Today, all Americans of good faith MUST ask themselves... Why free and easy access to guns? What constructive purpose does it serve?Newt Gingrich recently asked what purpose traditional free speech protections serve in the post-9/11 world. I don't believe that all Americans of good faith need to ask themselves what the purpose of a human right is, particularly in a climate of fear and shock, because relatively few rights serve a utilitarian purpose.
Why, oh why is widespread gun violence acceptable in America?It isn't; last I checked, gun violence is still illegal. The issue is whether we are willing to give up some liberties to protect our safety--a variation of the question posed after 9/11. And the answer, while not necessarily an automatic "no," should not be based on mortal fear.
If we ever decide to revise or subvert the Second Amendment, we should do so after careful consideration of the consequences. We should look at other countries that have abolished gun rights, and determine whether the overall effect on the crime rate was positive or negative. We should ask whether there are any less restrictive steps that we can take to protect student safety. We should, in short, be vigilant with respect to our constitutional rights--and we should be highly skeptical of politicians who ask us not to be. The alternative, as we have seen in the years since the September 11th attacks, is to put our faith in policies that may be as ineffective as they are restrictive.
However we feel about these issues, let's acknowledge that gun rights supporters do not love gun violence, and that those who oppose post-9/11 civil liberties violations do not love terrorism. We love our relatively open society with its Bill of Rights and its democratic tradition, and while we emphasize different freedoms, different constitutional protections, none of us want to lose that society. We must be vigilant in protecting it. Sometimes, in times of national tragedy, we will be tempted not to protect it--and demonized if we try. But many thousands have died to protect our rights; the least we can do is be conscientious stewards of their legacy.
Full coverage:
Comments
I agree that policy decisions should never be made in the spirit of emotional distress. I wonder if the legislative good that comes from this massacre is a new examination of why second amendment protections extend to handguns. The common reasoning for owning a handgun is not for hunting (for which they’re not particularly useful), but for protection. Crime statistics, however, show that a handgun is far more likely to be used in an accidental shooting than preventing a robbery - and for shooting up classmates. The question shouldn’t be, “Why do we allow private citizens to own guns?”; it should be, “Why do we allow private citizens to own handguns?”
Eric, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says a gun must be used for this purpose or that, including hunting, to fall under the umbrella of protection provided by the Bill of Rights.
Depending on which study you use, guns may be involved more often in accidents than they are in defense of crime, but how can we legislate safety? If we’re attempting to remove handgun ownership from the citizenry, that’s exactly what we’re doing. I don’t think the popular studies regarding how guns thwart crime are accurate; I believe they thwart crime many times before the criminal act has begun . . . which would make the Kleck studies more accurate. Think about it this way: Would you stick a sign in your front yard advertising that you do not own handguns? The idea that a firearm MIGHT be in the hands of a homeowner is likely to prevent a would-be burglar from ever entering the home.
Finally, handgun bans or restrictions in other countries have done nothing to decrease crime there. To the contrary, crime rates in Britain and Australia actually increased after strict gun control was put into place. Regarding handguns specifically, Great Britain issued its handgun ban in 1997. Within four years, the violent crime rate had doubled, and the British were calling on NYC Mayor Rudy Guliani to help solve their crime issue, saying that Londoners were six times more likely to be robbed or assaulted than New Yorkers.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearm s to be destroyed by their own government,
a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months,since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’.
Without them, we are ’subjects’.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready
in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
- George Orwell
“Therefore, to Protect our Neighbors, Land and Liberty,
‘Keep your Powder dry and your finger on the Trigger!’
Thus ensures our Freedom by means of the 2nd Amendment!”
- R. Guy
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people
to do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke, 1779
All of that to say this, I carry a gun to protect my family and my neighbors. If my government takes my guns away, only the crooked, dishonest persons will have them. I hunt also, and in Colorado you can hunt with a pistol (large caliber only) so as a Veteran of the Armed Services I took an oath to protect this country against all enemies, foreign or domestic. That is an Oath that just doesn’t stop it is a part of your way of life. Gun control shouldn’t be taking away your guns, but insuring that the WRONG people don’t get them.
I can’t help but think that so many students would not have died if one other trained person in any one of those class rooms had been protected with a handgun. My father taught us young about proper gun use and gun safety. I’m just sorry that the older I become the more compelled I am to carry one for protection. After all if the criminals and psychos are going to be equipped, then so am I.
I agree with Theresa. Imagine if one of the classes was attended by a well-trained off-duty police officer going back for a degree, or a shooting sports enthusiast legally carrying a concealed weapon. Two dozen lives could have been saved.
Statistics in my state show that after liberalizing concealed carry permits, those carrying the weapons were involved no incidents as the perpetrators. Legislators had to admit that somebody going through the permit process with background check turned out to be a law-abiding citizen who simply wanted to feel safer. Also, a large percentage of those applying for and receiving the permits were women. These are not the people you need to be frightened of, they are the people who are empowered to defend themselves and their loved ones when their lives are threatened.
What makes you feel safer - thinking nobody else has a gun? Or having one that you are well-trained to use in defense? That’s the dilemma. Both sides want to feel safe. Frankly, I think those who think they can create a gun-free zone are not going to see that happen. So, the effect is in disarming the “good” people, while the criminals and the unbalanced still will be able to obtain and use them.
I don’t think arming the campus security officers is warranted. These incidents are extremely rare, and it takes a lot of resources to hire and maintain competency for armed officers. Instead, it makes more sense to allow those whose self-interest is to defend themselves and who have been legally issued concealed carry permits to carry their weapons on campus. In the unlikely event of another spree shooting, you are more likely to have somebody in the vicinity of the threat to respond appropriately in defense of their life.
Again, it is the real life experience in my state that liberalizing concealed carry so that any adult who passes a background check and takes a firearms education class can be issued a permit. The results are that those people do not use that weapon in the course of a crime or wave it around in a bar fight. Most are little old ladies like me who, for whatever reason, may feel more secure when able to legally carry a concealed weapon.
I think that all states should adopt the same law as practiced in at least one municipality in New Mexico (can’t remember the name right now), that all persons over 18 MUST carry a gun.
They have the lowest crime rate in North America.
an ax could have wielded expertly an several would have died. it’s not guns, it’s not hospitalizing nuckelheads
The bigger picture is more important than just “Firearms”. The real issue is the fact that “OUR” government does not have the right or authority to regulate how the people (that the government is intended to present) excercise their individual rights to defend themselves. The second amendment was not a suggestion. It was important enough to the founding fathers that only FREE SPEECH preceded it. Even if you don’t like or own guns it is important to support the individual’s right to possess them if they see fit. What is next??? Tell you want books you can read? I find it funny how liberals think that gays should be allowed to marry.. women should be allowed to choose in abortion issues, BUT we are not allowed to choose whether to own and carry a firearm ??? It is that “selective liberty ” concept that is destroying the freedoms in this country.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, AND THAT RIGHT SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED. That is plain English.