American Confliction about Guns and Violence

First and foremost, if you want to help the victims and the families of those in Newtown, Connecticut, and you do not wish to read any sort of opinion piece, then go to this site to help and don't bother yourself with my words: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/How-to-Help-Victims-of-Newtown-School-Shooting-183635951.html

(Regardless of what my opinion is, or what "side" you're on, I think we can all agree that these people need our support, so click on the link above if you wish to help.)

I'm conflicted.  I see and hear what happens in our country, from Aurora, Colorado, to the horrors at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and then I think back to Columbine and to the countless number of random shootings we hear about in workplaces, schools, and homes, and then I have to wonder: What's going on here?  What's wrong with us?

Another question pops up, of course: How do we stop this from happening?

Immediately, the brain races to one undeniable fact.  People have always been killing each other, there have always been "crazies" or the mentally ill, and this is nothing new.  This is the part of us that tells us that gun control will do nothing to stop this, that people will just start using knives or pitchforks if they have to.  And this is true; the truly deranged will find a way, and criminal minds will make due with what they have.

Then the mind races over to another fact: guns make it easier for mass killings to occur.  Twenty children and eight teachers are now dead because a man possessed a powerful tool that allowed him, and ONLY HIM, to kill almost thirty people.  Without that power, he might've killed between two and five before being subdued or before everyone had run screaming beyond his reach.

The gun gave him this power, and that much can never be argued otherwise, not even by a man like myself that has in my possession a license to conceal and carry.  It's a fact, and I cannot run from it, so I won't.  It would be detrimental to personal growth to do so.  I will face it, and see where it leads me.

Some people, including many of my friends, argue that more guns are the answer, not fewer.  They argue that if someone had had a gun in that instance--such as a teacher or a specially-trained security officer hired to protect the school around the clock--then it would have negated the gunman's advantage, diminishing the kill count.  Perhaps this is true, but we have to face another fact: most people don't want to walk around with a gun on their hip.  Teachers don't want to lug it around in their purses or in an ankle holster, and more importantly they don't want a gun within reach of an angry or frustrated child at school who might lunge for their teacher's or security officer's gun if they feel threatened or bullied.

So, the teachers aren't going to carry guns, and you can forget trying to make them.  So, if they're not going to arm themselves, the only logical answer seems to be to disarm everyone, right?

But then our minds race to the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms, and we know that fundamentally this isn't possible.  Or is it?  Certainly repeal has never happened in the Bill of Rights, which is where the Second Amendment is currently tucked safely away, but Prohibition was an amendment of another kind that got repealed, so it's not completely unprecedented.

But then the mind races to another fact.  A right to bear arms is what makes it so that Americans could fight back against its own government, should the government ever become something as abominable as Nazi Germany, but any reasonable human being knows we're far, far from that, regardless of the name "Hitler" being endlessly flung at George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

And a right to bear arms also enables citizens to fight back against a foreign power, should they ever attempt to invade us, which some argue is a powerful reason to keep it.  (Not only would a foreign power have to contend with our military, but with a citizenry well armed, and with intent, and practice in using them.)

But then the mind races to yet another fact at the other end of the spectrum.  Times change.  The United Nations provides a stabilizing platform that didn't exist before 1945, after the last major war that could have destroyed all of us.  Are we really afraid of other nations attacking us now, and do we really believe that our Allies would not help us if that happened?

The fact is, we aren't who we were when the Second Amendment was implemented.  It was adopted on December 15, 1791, just nine years after England finally recognized the independence of the United States, when fears that our fledgling nation might not withstand another major war like the Revolutionary War were still rampant; and so, an armed citizenry seemed the appropriate measure.  However, with the singular exception of Pearl Harbor, we've never been invaded by a major power, and even at Pearl Harbor it was at our remotest state, Hawaii, which demonstrated why it might not be our right to bear arms that kept Japan from coming farther in to the U.S., and it might not even have been a fear of our military might.

In short, we're really, really far away from our enemies.

Was it fear of an armed citizenry that kept Japan from coming closer?  Certainly our two vast oceans, the Pacific and the Atlantic, which separate us greatly from other lands, deserve some of the credit.  After all, a sustained attack against an enemy on the other side of the planet isn't a smart tactic, even for the boldest of generals.

So the mind has to ask itself, once it has weighed all of this data, "Why are we so afraid of stricter gun laws, or even just a change to the Second Amendment?"  It's not "unconstitutional" to change an amendment--as I said, we did it with Prohibition and almost everyone is happy about that, so we know for a fact that it's permissable.  So why are we so resistant?

The mind argues back: "We had even less gun laws in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s (which is true, for the most part), but we never heard of anything like these rashes of school shootings and workplace shootings back then!  So, it's got to be the people!  It's not the guns!  The people have changed!  It's them, it's not the guns!"

Well, if that's the case, then we've just accepted the fact that we've changed, that we're different than we were before, and that maybe, just maybe, something is transforming America.  Some unseen force, or else a series of events and cultural distortions (which is far more likely, in my opinion), have changed us.  We're angrier, more violent.  Whether it's the politics, the economy, the population growth creating greater competition, poverty, TV and video games glorifying violence, lack of education or other socio-economic problems, we're obviously a changed people.

Maybe we need the guns controlled more.

But then quickly our mind races to Mexico, which has intense gun laws, yet look at all its violence.  It's as the pro-gun advocates say: "The good guys don't have them, because they're busy obeying the law, and therefore only the bad guys have them."  Yes, this is true, the mind argues back, but the guns are typically used by thugs against other thugs, cartels, and cops who at least have access to tactics, training and body armor.  The guns in Mexico aren't used anywhere near as much in school shootings.  (To get a look at all the major school shootings in the world from 1996 to present, and to see the OVERWHELMING majority of those that take place in America, check out this site: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)

"So what's wrong with America?" we ask ourselves. "Why does this happen so frequently here?"

People may point to strange sources, such as saying that it's a lack of "God" in homes or schools, that a secular society has created this problem, but the data clearly doesn't support that theory, either.  America has only about 10 - 14% of its population as agnostic or atheist, and the overwhelming majory of Americans show themselves to be far more religious than people in other countries like Britain, where this sort of thing is so much more of a rarity.

So why America?  Why us?  Why does this happen to such severity here, and so often?  It's gotten to the point that it's a guaranteed bet that not 6 months will go by before we hear about this again, this time at a college, or another movie theater, or a church, or a high school.

The last lingering question that leaves us conflicted is this one: Would we rather keep the Second Amendment EXACTLY as it is now, knowing full-well that a direct repercussion is that this is going to happen again, or would we rather do something that we may feel is drastic, such as removing or at least "amending the amendment"?  Would you rather keep your right to bear arms, if it means 6 months from now another 30 innocent children are going to be killed again, or that 40 theater-goers are going to be destroyed, or that 20 college kids are going to lose their lives?  Are you not even open to the discussion that something needs to be done?

Maybe the pro-gun advocates are right.  Maybe the world is changing, and we do need to protect ourselves more and more.  But maybe the enemy we have to protect ourselves from is the enemy from within.

I own a gun, and I have a license to conceal and carry.  I teach self-defense, and I believe it's important to know.  I'm even certified to teach Combat Handgun Combatives.  I know that I'm never going to use my gun to hurt an innocent person, but I no longer know what's on the mind of the other gun owners, such as the man who shot House Represenative Gabrielle Giffords, or the Virginia Tech shooter.

In short, just because you know that you're not going to use guns for ill, can you say the same for others?  We can try to say, "Blame it on the parents," but that doesn't make it so that parents are instantly going to become better parents.  We can say, "The families of these shooters ought to have known and reported to the police that their brother was acting fishy, before he went out to kill all those people," but that's neither practical nor realistic, even in the slightest sense.  No one has a crystal ball, no one can tell if their wife or husband is suddenly going to go bonkers three months from now and kill their whole family.

But the mind still argues: "People have been killing senators and family members and children since time began.  Hell, Julius Caesar was killed by a host of fellow politicians, friends and even family!  Guns didn't do all of that."

Yes, men also shot and killed Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, and all of those assassinations happened well before our time.  World leaders have also been targets, and will always be.  This is part of the risks they knowingly take on when  they enter into office.  But no child enters into elementary school knowingly taking on the risk of being slaughtered in a hail of gunfire.  Well, perhaps they do in countries we deem "below" our status.

And if that's so, what does it say about us?

Follow me on Twitter: @ChadRyanHuskins
Follow me on Facebook, and my fan page "Pscyho Series by Chad Huskins"
Visit my website: www.forestofideas.com