IN LAST WEEK’S COLUMN, I began my discussion of gun control by saying that I have some real ambivalence about the issue, based in part on the makeup of my extended family — how it is divided between mostly rural folks on my Mom’s side and Dad’s far more urban side of the family.
As someone who has feet in both camps, I see an awful lot of mythologizing about guns from both the pro- and anti-control sides of the debate. A gun, in and of itself, is intrinsically neither a Destroyer of the Innocent nor a Magical Totem of Manly Power. It is a machine — receiver, firing pin and primer, all working together to push a bullet down the barrel at high velocity.
So, I don’t think the problem has merely to do with the existence of guns. I do, however, think that some reasonable controls are necessary and wise.
It is worth mentioning that there are already gun control measures in place, and (aside from a few fringe militia types and assorted other gun fetishists) these controls are relatively uncontroversial and supported by a consensus of citizens across the political spectrum.
For example, it is illegal for most people to own a machine gun in the United States, and I and most other people think that’s a very good thing. Machine guns are designed to do one thing: kill large numbers of people or threaten them with death. I can’t think of a good reason for a civilian to have one. No one needs that much firepower for personal defense, and if anyone does then it can reasonably be said that he probably needs to work on his people skills. And no one needs a machine gun for hunting — if you need to spray the woods with hundreds of rounds to get a buck, then I think you need to hit the firing range more often.
More to the point, a machine gun in the wrong hands can very quickly produce casualties on an industrial scale – the prospect of an Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook gunman) with full-auto weaponry is more than any reasonable person can bear to contemplate.
So there is a consensus that weaponry explicitly designed for military use ought not to be generally available. This principle needs to be expanded beyond the obvious: The only place I’ve ever needed a 30-round magazine was for the M-16 I was issued by the Army. I’ve never needed one for hunting or target shooting. The day I need 30 rounds to get a deer is the day my rifle will become a conversation piece rather than a tool for hunting. I can’t think of any valid reason for ordinary citizens to have a magazine holding more than five rounds.
I also can’t think of a valid reason to oppose mandatory background checks for gun purchasers, nor can I come up with a reason a mentally unstable person should have a right to possess a gun.
But for me, there is another factor in play here, a factor not often mentioned in debates over gun control. I’m speaking of the situation on the ground in places like Richmond and East Oakland.
It has been said that a nation can be judged best by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens; I would say that the people in our poorer neighborhoods are our most vulnerable population, and the daily existence of people in the Flats in Richmond is beset by violence and the desolating grief it causes. The cheapness and plentitude of guns has been a large contributing factor to this situation.
I’ve talked to many people in my old neighborhood and in other places like it, and a story I keep hearing from older people there is how the violence has escalated in the last 30 or 40 years. Gangs have existed in one form or another probably since cities have existed, but within living memory of some old-timers, those gangs settled differences with their fists and — when everyone’s arms eventually grew tired of throwing punches — from negotiations between factions.
The easy availability of guns has destroyed the old order, mostly because guns can bring a terrible (but illusory) finality to conflicts, but also because killing someone raises the stakes for everyone involved. Getting a beating will usually result in humiliation at worst; the prospect of being killed means everyone is fighting not just for abstractions like honor and respect, but for their very survival. It also means that the cycle of retaliation can have no real end.
Mohandas Gandhi said that “an eye for an eye soon leaves everyone blind.” Answering death with death brings only more death.
I think asking, “How do we find a compromise that will be acceptable to both hunters and the professoriate?” is not enough; I think we also need to ask, “What can we do to deal with the terrible situation in our poor neighborhoods?”
The answer to that question is very complex, but I think removing guns from the equation is an essential ingredient so we can buy time to de-escalate conflicts and address the deeper issues that afflict our most vulnerable citizens.
READ THE FIRST PART OF MATT TALBOT’S OPED ON GUN CONTROL BY CLICKING HERE.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
JLB says
Gun stats released this week show that deaths by guns is down by 39% in the last 20 years and violent crime is down 69% yet we have more guns than ever. Just because they are used more by gangs now than before still does not make guns the problem. No matter how you slice it, the gun is nothing more than a tool. So what we have is more violent people who are willing to inflict major injuries or death, be it by gun, chain, baseball bat or what ever. It is and will always be the person. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. So why do we have to regulate the law abiders to try to stop the criminals. We all know that that the criminals don’t obey the law in the first place, so it is clear that new laws to stop criminals will have no effect. Most gang kids are products of broken families or no dad at all. We have a societal break down and a family system break down in this country that greatly contributes to violence on the streets. It is not a gun problem. It is a bad guy problem. Laws only serve to regulate good guys. Its time to leave the good guys alone and go after the bad guys. But is clear that is not the desire. The desire by our government is to strip society of all guns and if they could begin a mass confiscation right now, make no mistake they would do it in a second. There are plenty government officials who have stated that openly. DiFi is one of them. Don’t be fooled. Why would she would even be discussing gun control right now, other that NewTown? The administration, in their own words, would never want a good crisis go to waste. So let’s look at the facts, we have a huge decline in gun crime over the last 20 years and the same time we have massive growth in gun ownership in America. Those two FACTS alone, would make most people think things are under control and headed in the right direction. We have NewTown happen and now ALL OF A SUDDEN we have a crisis on our hands that must be addressed right now at all costs. If it was such a problem, why was there not such a push before NewTown? Or not before Aurora? The truth is, although those events were horrific and tragic, they are not indicators that we have a gun problem in America. The facts, presented by the US Department of Justice (Eric Holder) just down bear that out. We have much bigger problems on our plate that currently need to be addressed. Time to move on.
Real American says
“We have much bigger problems on our plate that currently need to be addressed. Time to move on.”
Tell that to Noah Pozner.
Real American says
More than 4,000 people have been killed by guns since Newtown. What “bigger problems” would you have us tackle?
JLB says
Yes and where have they been killed? In the states and cities like Chiago that have the toughest gun laws in the country. So how are those control laws working out.
More importantly, how many babies have been murdered at the hands of abortion doctors in the same time. I guarantee you that the gun deaths are small fraction of that number. Priorities?
Real American says
“Yes and where have they been killed? In the states and cities like Chiago that have the toughest gun laws in the country.” See Thomas Petersen’s list below if you think that’s true. AND … I have some real estate to sell you west of San Francisco!
And why do you insist on conflating gun deaths and abortion? One has nothing to do with the other. Can we not work to reduce gun deaths AND reduce abortions? Or are you incapable of focusing on two things at once?
Abortions, by the way, are not murder. Check it out, abortion is legal. You can look it up. For real, no joke.
Real American says
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/smashing-absurd-myth-more-guns-make-us-safer
Bob Livesay says
Excellent comment and very factual.
DDL says
Good points JLB.
Consider two recent tragedies: Newtown and Gosnell.
Gosnell – Those who favor unlimited choice declared that Gosnell was an aberration and we should not overreact, or think that his actions reflect in any way shape or form a consensus from the pro ‘choice’ side. Prosecute him, ignore any other possible Gosnells, don’t investigate, don’t regulate was the message delivered.
Newtown – Those who favor gun ‘controls’ and regulation shouted from the highest of levels:
REGULATE!! BACK GROUND CHECKS!! REGULATE MORE!! SAVE THE CHILDREN.
Newtown was treated as if it was a common occurrence and all steps including voiding the Second was advocated.
One reaction compared to the other represents the hypocrisy we see all too often from some elements in our country.
DDL says
Correction should read: ‘Second were advocated’
Real American says
There is only one Kermit Gosnell.
DDL says
Not according to the NY Times
Real American says
I see what you’re doing and it will not work.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/05/kermit_gosnell_guilty_verdict_infanticide_and_clinic_regulation_are_not.html
JLB says
If you believe that, I have some real estate I can sell you just east of Miami. Real cheap!
JLB says
Here is another example. Gosnell is not an insulated case. Pro abortionist would like you and America to believe that.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/texas-abortionist-killed-babies-with-his-bare-hands/
Real American says
Mighty tortured logic here.
Thomas Petersen says
I’m all for responsible gun ownership. Here are a few recent cases (within last couple of weeks) of irresponsible gun ownership:
– Armed security officer’ accidentally shoots student at Aurora school
– An 11-year-old Florida boy has died after being shot by a four-year-old relative on Mother’s Day
– Florida man won’t be charged for shooting himself while bowling
– Florida 13-year-old shoots 6-year-old sister playing hide-and-seek
– Florida 3-year-old fatally shoots himself with concealed permit holder’s gun
– Texas 5-year-old shoots 7-year-old brother during boys’ bath time
– 2-year-old Texas boy shoots himself in the head with father’s handgun
– 8-year-old boy shoots 5-year-old friend with found rifle
– Woman In Starbucks Drops Purse With Forgotten Gun Inside, Shoots Friend In The Leg
The “gun owners” responsible for these incidents are the folks we need to weed out. Idiots should not own guns, period!
DDL says
I saw the story of the incident in the bowling alley, even found a picture of the guy involved.
Thomas Petersen says
And, here is a turnip:
http://schmidling.com/turnip1.jpg
JLB says
Safety issues. Again, the guns did not do the act. More control laws would not create different outcomes in any of those supposed cases. I can demonstrate links to countless numbers of incidents where guns were used successfully to defend people and save lives. Official reports are 800,000 times a year on the low side up to 2.2 millions times a year and maybe more because many go unreported. The gun grabbers say saving one life mandates that we try harder but they completely ignore the increasing number of lives that would be lost if we didn’t have guns. The argument is full of holes and they know it so they omit facts and outright lie at every turn to get what they want. And I guarantee you there is no interest in public safety what so ever!
Real American says
“And I guarantee you there is no interest in public safety what so ever!” That’s a guarantee you cannot make.
Thomas Petersen says
Keep on keeping on. My point was that there are way to many irresponsible idiots. And, we need to avoid giving idiots the potential to exercise poor judgement. Less idiots equals a better quality of life. If my children go over to their friends house, how can I be sure that the parents of their friends are not irresponsible gun-owning idiots?
Thomas Petersen says
The right idea, just not soon enough:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/05/authorities_right_to_arrest_fa.html
“Authorities were right to arrest Anthony Senatore, 33, for keeping his five guns and ammo in easy reach of his three kids, and to escort him to jail on charges of child endangerment.”
Thomas Petersen says
More irresponsible gun-owner idiocy:
– North Carolina 2-year-old puts dad’s unattended gun in his mouth and fires.
Robert M. Shelby says
I GIVE UP. All these self-assuredly righteous people should fill their emptiness with guns and surround themselves with firepower. Images of wealthy freedom defended by government are not enough. They must fill that void in their better natures which should hold understanding, tolerance, caring concern and selfless courage instead of fearfully invidious malice and hatred for others. Such negative qualities seem always ready to fill the hole in the soul formed in default of positive values.
JLB says
Aweful lot of blanket statements in your comments none of which can be substantiated. I love guns and have several but I also have faith and don’t have emptiness. You sure have a pretty hard outlook on others when you know nothing about them. I don’t hate others but I do hold onto my right to defend myself, my family and you too if the circumstances were such.
Thomas Keene says
One of the great paradoxes of our time is how modern “Liberals” have become so obsessed with disenfranchising others of their liberties. Through nanny state laws, ever increasing government interference in our lives, relying on taxation of other classes to compel social change, catastrophic social engineering projects, I could go on and on, it would seem that modern liberals have become more deeply fixated in gimmicky solutions whose only real impact would be to make themselves feel more smug, self righteous and free of any sense of guilt. The prospect that most of the problems liberals attempt to “fix” don’t get fixed, and more often than not get worse, seems to be of no import. It’s the selfish ego that is assuaged, and that seems to be the all important. In reading the last few of Mr. Talbot’s columns, I have to see his views in the manner described above. Mr. Talbot speaks about his kinship with most vulnerable in his home town of Richmond, but would he ever consider other potential solutions that do not disenfranchise freedoms of the law abiding? I doubt this. How convenient is it that the freedoms he proposes to suspend our of those who have view points that run counter to his? Would he ever consider the possibility that; maybe some of the most violent war zones in the United States are also the areas that are the most affected by the social engineering policies of the modern left? Would Mr. Talbot ever stop to consider that maybe, there is a correlation between the expansion of the welfare state in the 1960’s, and the resultant fatherless culture which has been an absolute calamity for all, but mostly for the black community which the left professes to champion. Before the War on Poverty, rates of out of wedlock births were running about one in five black families. Today, this rate has increased to over 70%. The results are in; the government has proven to be a poor substitute for actual fathers and intact families. The proof of this lays on the bloodied streets of Mr. Talbot’s Richmond community, and countless other black communities who have become ensnared in the cycle of government sponsored dependancy.
Liberal politics have mastered the manipulative and devisive strategy of portraying conservatives as racists. Kudos to you for this brilliant, yet counter-productive political strategy. With this in mind though, I ask Mr. Talbot, and others with similar views, shouldn’t racism be viewed through the lens of actual impact rather than the cheap and false innuendo the left has come to depend on? I think we all know that this will not happen and based on this, the left will continue to exploit trajedy to further a political agenda that runs counter to a free society. Sadly, modern liberalism has become not much more than an oxymoron, and Mr. Talbot’s Richmond community is all the worse for it.
DDL says
Thomas Keane stated:Would he ever consider the possibility that; maybe some of the most violent war zones in the United States are also the areas that are the most affected by the social engineering policies of the modern left?
Excellent response Mr. Keane, not just the above excerpt, but the entire commentary is right on target.
Adding to what you have stated, a significant part of the problemscan be boiled down to one word; responsibility – the liberal mentality accepts none for their actions and places none on the shoulders of those they seek to help. If one does not fit into either of those two categories then virtually the full burden of responsibility falls upon those shoulders.
JLB says
In a word … BINGO!
Real American says
TL; DR. But this is actually on topic:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/ted-nugents-brother-gun-control-will-get-done-without-the-nra/
optimisterb says
Wow, JLB! You need to start writing a regular column!