Clearly I cannot hope to properly understand “The Gun
Debate” even if there is such a thing.
The shootings in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut
made the international news and we caught some of the debate on the radio (BBC
world service), and on TV (I have no idea which channel) I thought I should
note down my thoughts, and my puzzlement.
I understand that the Second Amendment allows for the
possession and use or fire arms for legal purposes, such as self defence. This right was refined in 2008 and 2010, even
strengthened. I have since read one
article that says the 2nd amendment allows for militia, and is not aimed at
private ownership.
I heard part of the NRA statement on the radio. The line seems to be “To stop a bad guy with
a gun you need a good guy with a gun.”
In August 2012 a disgruntled employee went and shot a former
colleague in New York. Without the
response that followed it would be a simple murder. However, the police response resulted in the
offender being shot and 9 people being wounded. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/new-york-empire-state/index.html
The wounded were all caught in the cross-fire, hit by police, in the early
reports. An investigation is under-way – not surprising. We are very lucky that no innocent passers-by
were actually killed, good guys with guns do not always behave appropriately.
On the TV there were loads of statistics on gun deaths;
Japan was used as an example, as the number there is effectively zero. The culture is very different, perhaps too
different. European comparisons may be
more valid. Here the numbers are very
low.
One of the problems is quantity. Sure ‘bad guys’ kill people, not good guys,
if the ‘bad guys’ have a low powered single shot weapon, with few bullets
stored in it, they will kill fewer people.
When a man with a knife went berserk in a hospital in China, lots of
children were injured, but none were killed, had he had a semi-automatic rifle
things would have been different.
Why is it that most industrialised (first world) countries
do not permit their citizen to own guns freely and why do those citizens
generally accept the restriction?
For me it is about security.
There is a problem with knife crime in a few areas in the UK. The message to the young men concerned is
‘don’t take a knife, or you will get hurt’.
Those that are hurt usually claim that they had the knife for self
defence. The problem is that they don’t
really know how to use it, so with a weapon they are at a bigger disadvantage
than if they were unarmed. But they are
frightened, so feel they need protection. From the responses I have heard to
the question "Why would/do you own a gun?" the situation is the same
- it is for defence. Defence from others
who may be using their gun in a less than legal way.
This short video clip also helps us to understand that their
history links gun ownership to freedom, and exposes their fear of their own
government.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21126850#TWEET543020.
It seems then, that Americans live in fear. What will it take for them to experience
truer freedom? Can the descendants of
the pioneers be brave enough to change their culture?
