Let’s Ask WHY, not WHAT

 Guns and their regulation are once again at the forefront.  Instead of the same old, tried and tired arguments, I would like to see us think more deeply about the problem.  Let’s remember that guns are the instrument, not the instigator of violent acts.  We know what guns are.  It is time that we take a deeper dive into the problem and ask not What, but Why are so many picking up this instrument and using it to commit violent acts.

The following addresses some of the concepts surrounding gun regulation issues, but ultimately moves beyond them to consider the Why of the problem, rather than the What.

Where are the voices of compassion on days there is no mass shooting?

The Democrats, in trouble at the mid-terms, must be delighted that the recent mass shootings have given them a new and compelling talking point as they provide a soap box for their anti-gun mantra:  children are killed and we care, let’s eliminate the weapon that killed them, then all will be fine.  Sounds good until one explores the facts and stops to think for a moment.

Mass shootings make the news.   But while such events kill several individuals at once, they are only a small percent of all the killings that occur daily in this country.  Think about Chicago.  Children are shot and killed every weekend.  According to CBS, in 2021 at least 275 children 16 and under were shot, 43 of them younger than 13.   

It is not only Chicago though.  Cities all across America have seen increases in violence, with and without guns.  Every day of the year there are children caught in the crossfire or otherwise injured and killed by strangers, by other children, by their own parents.  Daily.

We should all be upset by the school shootings and the other mass killing events, but if that sorrow and outrage does not carry over to the individual and far more frequent events, then one must wonder about the sincerity of the mass-shooting outrage.

Restrictions on Gun Ownership and the Constitution

The right to bear arms is a right explicitly set forth in the Constitution.  It appears in the Bill of Rights, along with other core rights such as free speech, freedom to worship, right of assembly, etc.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect citizenry from overreach of the federal government.

At the time of our country’s founding, many believed, in part based on their experience, that “governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people.” (The National Constitution Center, constitutioncenter.org) The proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total authority over the army and militia. This concerned many, along with anti-federalist concerns that the people and their rights should be protected from the federal government.  Such concerns led to the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

While “the Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government,” it was “easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.” (constitutioncenter.org)

Compelling governmental interest may allow some regulation or limitation of basic freedoms expressly stated in the Constitution.  A governmental interest is compelling if it is essential and necessary rather than simply a matter of choice, preference, or discretion.  The proposed limitation on fundamental rights must undergo strict scrutiny to show that that limitation is indispensable to achieving the compelling interest.  The government must prove that it cannot achieve its purpose through any other less infringing means.

Moreover, any such regulation must be narrowly focused on a specific harm; the infringement can be no broader than is absolutely essential to achieving the compelling interest.  The government cannot generally prohibit guns any more than it can generally prohibit expression of religion or speech. 

Even the temporary assault weapon ban signed under President Clinton did not ban those weapons from everyone but only sale of certain types of such weapons for the limited period of the ban and with a number of exceptions allowed.  No matter how much we may believe that certain types of weapons should belong only to military and law enforcement, there is likely no compelling governmental interest that, under strict scrutiny, would allow the government to absolutely deny the right to bear such a gun to all citizens.

The problem is, if one thinks today that such broad limitations are acceptable, then that becomes precedent for similar broad limitations on other core freedoms including the freedom to speak, to worship, to assemble.   Thus, if you can ban a type of gun from everyone, it follows, for example, that you can ban a particular type of worship from everyone.  Don’t like what the Lutheran church is preaching – just ban worship there, following a precedent of banning certain guns from everyone.  This is not what our Constitution intended or allows.  (Personally, I hate guns, but I love the Constitution and our freedom more.)

What about licensing?

We often hear the comment:  we register and license cars and drivers, so why not do the same for guns?  First, we must note that this analogy is misplaced since the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution while there is no such guarantee about automobiles or any other transportation device.

Nonetheless, some licensing of our constitutionally protected freedoms is allowed.  For example, peaceful demonstrators, no matter how controversial or unpopular their cause, are allowed to speak their views, but they can be required to obtain a permit to conduct their march or demonstration and such speech can be limited to certain times.  It cannot, however, be banned entirely. 

I’m not sure how this translates to guns, beyond such things as hunting licenses and limitations or perhaps limiting hour and locations for shooting ranges etc.  States of course can enact regulations that define gun free zones, ability and requirements for carrying a concealed weapon, etc.  

We already have these gun licensing laws in place.  We also have criminal statutes that prohibit one from using a firearm in an illegal manner such as to commit a felony, or to assault or murder.  We can, of course, concern ourselves with ensuring that such regulations and statutes are well enforced, but in many of the mass murders as well as other shootings, licensing and similar regulation would have done nothing to stop the event from occurring.

Guns are the tool, not the instigator, of the tragedies

The problem is not the gun, but the one who fires it.  We must recognize that attempts to ban or control guns are a superficial fix and move on to reach the deeper question of Why, not What.  We must question why there is so little respect for human life in this country, why people in this country turn so quickly to violence, even deadly violence, when they are upset or having a dispute with another human being. 

I have touched on this question in past blogs.  I think that in large part it traces back to a lost belief in the concept of something greater than ourselves combined with a rise in the desire for self-satisfaction to the detriment of anything or anyone else. 

Value systems based outside of oneself causes society to adopt rules of behavior toward one another as well as respect humanity as something unique, irreplaceable, and deserving of respect.  A value system that places the self above all else leads to destruction of the social order as the individual seeks constant gratification.

We are becoming different people

In my local newspaper today there was the story of a 20 year old who shot and killed a man as part of a “road rage” incident.  The two did not know each other.  Apparently the 20 year old was driving and came upon the man and his friend walking in the road.  The 20 year old drove by, the man apparently thought he was too close, so when the 20 year old parked nearby the man came to him and angrily accosted him.  A fist fight ensued and when the 20 year old was on the ground he pulled his gun and fired.  The man died.

The sad thing is that this does not sound surprising or terribly out of the ordinary in today's world.  We regularly read stories of basically minor disagreements that end in shooting or stabbing or other violence.  What has happened in society that causes us to have such little regard for human life?  Why is violence our go-to method of settling disputes?

Destroying every gun in this country will not alter this attitude.  What may alter it is a deep look inside ourselves and our current cultural norms. 

The family, once the place where children were taught not only social skills and civility but also a respect for the world outside of themselves is a fading concept.  We have single parent homes, even essentially no parent homes when we see children just weeks old shipped off to daycare for the “convenience” of their parents.  We have dysfunctional families where drugs or similar mental problems overtake the family dynamic. 

Children growing up in dysfunctional families have no healthy model on which to base their own parenting.  Schools, that used to work in consort with parents to teach children necessary academic skills now teach children to keep secrets from parents as they learn about the day’s smorgasbord of genders from which they can choose.

Lost children become lost adults.  They become angry adults.  They become adults who do not understand how to interact with others, how to participate in the give and take that society requires.  They become adults full of hurt, and that hurt spills out in many ways.  And we see this destroying our society and whom and what we are as human beings. 

Today we have more and stricter gun laws than ever before; nonetheless, gun violence (as well as other forms of violence) continues to rise.  Guns are nothing more than a tool and that tool is currently being used to act out the deep dysfunction of our society.  Removing guns will not cure the problem.  Taking a deep look into how we are raising and what we are teaching our children is the only way we can ever heal.

If Democrats' Response is One of Hatred, then What?

After the President called for a sensible, multi-phased, and bipartisan attack against the violence and hatred in America, what was the Democrats’ response?  To unleash more partisan and vitriolic hatred against the President, his supporters, and his suggestions. 

Sen. Corey Booker:  “Such a bulls—t soup of ineffective words.”  Rep. Tim Ryan:  “Fck me.”  Responding to his call to stop the glorification of violence and including as one of his points to look at mental illness, Sen. Elizabeth Warren responded, “White supremacy is not a mental illness. We need to call it what it is: Domestic terrorism. And we need to call out Donald Trump for amplifying these deadly ideologies.”  [We should note here that Trump condemned racism and white supremacy along with hatred.]  Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said, ““President Trump’s words today are meaningless.  We know his vile and racist words have incited violence and attacks on Americans.”  Presidential candidate Julian Castro accused the president of serving as a “national spokesperson” for white nationalism. 

Trump commented on the media’s responsibilities; the response of filmmaker Ava DuVernay was, “Nah. News coverage has got to start calling you what you are. A traitor. A liar. A racist. A coward. A fool.”  The Washington Post found criticism in counting of words: “The president used 105 words of his speech to call out the Internet and social media. He spent 80 words condemning racism and hatred.  He also used only 53 words to address access to guns, compared to 62 words on mental illness and evil.” 

The above are just a few of the comments that have occurred in the 3 or so hours following the President’s address this morning.  More will surely come.  And, they do not include the post address commentary by the media and pundits, most of whom decided that the President was lying when he denounced racism and white supremacy, reverting back to their narrative that he is a racist and he is personally responsible for the two tragedies in Dayton and El Paso.  Others focused on the one mistake in an otherwise fine speech – a one time use of Toledo, a different city in Ohio, when it seems that the reference should have been to Dayton.  Note, there has been no similar ridicule for candidate Biden referring to Houston and Michigan where it seems he meant El Paso and Ohio.

These reactions are in complete contrast to the virtue signaling of the Democrats.  They present themselves as warriors against a hate-filled society that is the sole creation of the President.  Yet, since the day that Donald Trump became president, we have heard a constant barrage of hate-filled words directed at him and his supporters.  We have seen Democrats encourage and some act out violence against the President, his supporters, and essentially anyone who does not stand fully with the Democrats.  Even before 2016 it was the Democrats who were using identity politics to foment hatred among the people of our country.

The Democrats have one solution to gun violence – more gun regulation.   While that was one of the points included in Trump’s plan [and, one must note here that Trump’s administration has done more than others to tighten gun laws as well as ban bump stocks], Trump astutely noted that "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun."  This statement (which underscores the reasons for the other points in the President’s plan of attack), seems to be especially offensive to the Democrats.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar said it was Mr. Trump’s attempt “to avoid truth.”

Apparently, for the Democrats it is easier to banish the means rather than to actually address the problem of causation.  Those that do consider causation at all are content to conclude that Trump is the sole cause; they seem to have forgotten the mass shootings and violence that occurred pre-2016, not to mention the hatred and gun violence that occurs daily all across America.   

The Democrats love to virtue signal that it is not them but the hated conservatives who foment hatred in this country. But the Democrats and their supporters call for hatred and violence daily.  They turn everything into a political weapon against Donald Trump.  The President is correct that beyond gun ownership there is a cultural problem, a social media/internet problem, a mental health problem, and a lack of unity or ability to address issues in a bi-partisan way for the good of the country. 

The Democrats do not want to work together to try to solve underlying social problems that lead to tragic violence such as we saw this past weekend.  They would rather use the violence to condemn a president they do not like; it simply becomes another weapon in their arsenal in their war to remove him from office. 

The President’s address this morning raised some valid points, issues and questions that deserve serious thought and consideration.  He is right that the country needs to come together and work bi-partisanly to address the hatred and violence.  But, when the reaction of the Democrats is to immediately begin spewing more hatred, then one wonders why even bother?

About Gun Control

So, as always after a mass shooting, the calls for gun control begin. 

Now, understand, I am not a fan of guns.  I don’t like hunting; if I’m in danger I’m going to feel a lot more comfortable calling 911 or even just screaming rather than trying to unlock, load, lock, aim, and shoot a firearm.  On the other hand, I have been to a shooting range a few times and really enjoyed the challenge and competition of target shooting (in the same sort of way that one enjoys striving for and getting a strike in bowling; so maybe we could all just go bowling together). 

Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter whether or not I favor guns, because we have the Second Amendment which provides for the right to bear arms.  I don’t particularly like this amendment, but, then, there are people who don’t seem to particularly like the first amendment or various other parts of the Constitution.  I defend the Constitution to them, and so I do the same to myself for the Second Amendment, because certain parts of our Constitution are not more important than others.   We cannot pick and choose which parts of our Constitution we will enforce and follow – it all carries equal weight and as citizens we must defend it in its entirety.

But, here’s the thing – why do we only seem to hear the screams for gun control after a mass shooting. Why don’t we hear similar advocacy every day when we have thousands of shootings across the country and especially in big cities like Chicago.  Children are injured and die there almost every day from gunshots, so where are the screams for better gun control there and why not on a daily basis?  Better regulation of gun and ammunition sales to the people who use guns daily seems to make a lot more sense than trying to figure out a way to keep guns from the hands of a mass murderer who, until the time of the heinous act, appears totally sane and normal and who, until the act, avoids discovery of whatever plans and motives he or she might have.    

We have the Constitutional right to bear arms.  That right can be reasonably regulated.  So let’s aim our regulations at the everyday people who commit the everyday murders that kill a lot more people over the course of the year than any single mass shooting.   Personally, I don’t think we can ever create background checks that will catch all or even nearly all people who should not have guns.  And I don’t think prohibiting guns to the insane will prevent gun violence from those who appear sane until they suddenly snap.  And then there’s the plain fact that there’s probably already enough guns out there for every citizen to have at least one. 

So, what would I do? First, make it much harder to purchase ammunition.  I think it may be easier to buy a quantity of ammo at Walmart than it is to buy spray paint.  A gun is not going to be much good without ammo (and yes, I know there would be a black market and people could make their own, but it would at least make acquisition somewhat more difficult which might delay or even stop some gun violence).  I would also ban some of the types of guns that are currently available.  I would allow small pistols, etc. for self-protection, basic rifles for hunting, guns for target shooting.  Beyond that, do we really need to generally sell the warlike weapons that are now easily available? (I do realize that there are some good arguments for a Yes answer to this question) At least make then much harder to purchase with significantly greater restrictions than the basic guns.  

That’s what I’d do, though honestly I don’t think it would make much difference. People who want to kill with guns are going to find a way to do so.  I know it is a cliché, but the problem is not the guns.  We seem to have a growing number of people in this country who see violence up to and including murder, as a way to solve problems.  We seem to have more and more people who do not value human life.  We have a country that is filled with divisiveness and anger.  It is this sickness of the soul that needs our attention far more than, or at least concurrent with, revisions to our gun laws.