The debate over the historical meaning of the second amendment is one that has been raging since the 1960's. It is the job of many skilled historians to discern the sometimes unclear meaning of the words in our constitution. If there is ever a consensus among that group, it is of even further importance to decide if the constitution should be taken at face value in its historical context, or if it should be adapted for an evolving, modern society. Proponents of second amendment rights often interpret the meaning as applying to an individual's right to bear arms for the purpose of protection. This interpretation has been upheld by Justice Scalia who is quite well known for ruling in favor of the historical context of the constitution. Justice Scalia is not in favor of reinterpreting the constitution to uncover how it might apply to a modern society. Proponents of gun-control find the second amendment to be concerned with the society in which our country was founded over 200 years ago, mainly the idea that this amendment refers to the right of the people to form militias for the common defense, which was a reasonable assertion during the revolutionary era in our country's history. Many others believe that regardless of the historical context of the second amendment, our current government should be concerned with the forward progress of our society and the protection of the citizens of our country.
Whichever side of the argument you happen to be on, one thing is clear, the policies that are currently in effect in our country are not sufficient in protecting the public from those that mean to do harm with firearms. Two-thirds of homicides in our country are committed with firearms. One might argue that without firearms, criminals would find another way to attack, but the problem with this argument is that others modes of violence are less effective. It is fairly easy to shoot someone from a long distance with a firearm and inflict a large amount of damage. It is much more difficult to inflict that same amount of damage with a different weapon at a similar distance. Only thirty-three percent of homicides are carried out sans firearm. This provides for an interesting correlation. One might deduce that not only are crimes with firearms increasing, but they are also becoming more deadly as guns, in and of themselves, become more efficient.
Our historical predecessors certainly could not have known that in 2014 criminals would have access to semi-automatic weapons and sniper rifles. Society has changed. Hunting and farming on a personal level is no longer our primary means of obtaining food, and our democratic government has progressed to a point where forming a militia for common defense is infeasible. Military intelligence is past the point of fearing public retribution. Those who follow Justice Scalia's views on the second amendment have one valid point: a gun can protect your family against those who wish to do harm against you. This is a true fact. However, households which maintain firearms are three times more likely to harm an innocent family member than an intruder. Both statistics and psychology dictate that having a firearm in your home decreases overall safety.
There is also an ever-escalating dilemma when it comes to gun-control. Gun laws cannot have a long-lasting positive effect if they are not imposed on a national level. Statistical analysis has shown time and again that whenever a state or city within the continental United States issues a strict gun control law, there in an immediate reduction in both firearm-related and general crime which gradually increases as guns are smuggled back into the area from nearby states/cities which do not have similar laws. This creates an imbalance in the "system" whereby criminals are able to obtain firearms and law-abiding citizens are not. This scenario further enables the idea that citizens need guns for protection. If you combine this with the fact that the process of purchasing a gun is very loosely regulated in our capitalist economy, it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the absence of increasingly unfavorable federal mandates, nationwide reduction in gun violence is not possible.
At this point in my argument, the debate on this issue comes down to philosophy. Is it EVER okay to intentionally hurt another human being? Many would say that, yes, it is okay to do so in order to protect yourself or your family. Their intentions seem justified to most, and I have often found myself pondering my own ability to refrain from this reaction. But, as painful as the idea is to me, and as much as I would like to always be able to prevent harm against myself or my family, I simply cannot condone the use of violence in any circumstance. Yes, I could thwart a criminal with a gun. I'm actually quite skilled with most weapons. But the deepest part of my soul tells me that hurting another human being, for any reason, is just wrong. My dear husband has the complete opposite view from me, so I take solace in knowing that my children will grow up with the ability to make their own decisions on the subject, but I cannot place justifications along the way whenever it would be beneficial to me. I have suffered from misdeeds in the past, and I am sure to encounter more along the way. I plan to cry and be fearful at the injustice in the world. Throughout it all, the one attribute I hope to never lose is my ability to understand and forgive others. I pray that terrible violence never happens against my family, and if it does, I pray that I will maintain my love for humanity and seek to forgive those that do harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment