Grandma and her gun

Police officer Melvin Santiago executed by street thug

The horrible tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook in December of 2012 prompted a number of states to tighten regulations on guns. Massachusetts is the latest of these.

Without exception, gun control activists are upset with perceived deficient regulation and are clamoring for more. Advocates are equally perturbed with what they see as infringements on their rights.  In this emotionally laden debate, the media are of little help. From which perspective can we better understand the divide?

First, it is not a coincidence that Democrats and Republicans line up on different sides. Democrats tend to be collectivists and Republicans, individualists, which explains strongly held beliefs on a wide range of topics. Collectivists believe that human happiness can be best attained by conformity – they put the whole first. Individualists take an opposite tack and elevate the individual, believing that social well-being will follow.

Second, we must perceive guns for what they really are. Forget the images of the semi-automatic “assault” rifles and black handguns glorified by Hollywood. These are machines, evolved over many hundreds of years, designed to multiply the force that a human being can bring to bear.  Muscle mass is removed from consideration; a ninety-eight pound grandmother becomes the complete equal of a muscle-bound attacker.

And finally, we must address the issue of violence, which arises from multiple sources. First and foremost is criminal activity perpetrated by that subset of individuals who lack empathy and communal values. To them, a mugging, robbery, or assault is just a day at the office. According to a recent Swedish study, 63% of all violent crimes are committed by 1% of the population. If applied to the US, we would estimate that well over 3 million individuals are in this category.

Next are extreme sociopaths and the criminally insane, those who commit violent acts to fulfill some need in their fantastical worlds. These are few but spectacular: Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine.

Lastly we must take special note of the thuggery in our inner cities. Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Saint Louis top the list, with homicide rates from 34 to 47 per 100,000, on par with many third world countries. Daily we read news accounts of coldblooded killings prompted by territory disputes or minor slights or a desire to be famous. On a recent Sunday, a thug with such a wish executed a rookie police officer. Subsequently killed by police, his shrine is bigger than the slain officer's.

With all this as a stage, how can we understand where we might go? What would satisfy the polar opponents in this question?

Gun control advocates would, in their dreams, completely vaporize guns from the planet. At the very least, they would have us follow the Australian model by confiscating and tightly restricting the private ownership of weapons.

Gun rights supporters, on the other hand, would have each and every citizen (who is not a criminal or insane), freely own and carry a weapon if they so desire.

These two worlds are completely different.

Let’s say, on the first hand, that we could vaporize all guns. This is a mindset that the 98-pound grandmother’s self-defense must be sacrificed to the common good. That by making her vulnerable, occasional losses are, while perhaps regrettable, justifiable.

Those on the other side would say that, in a society made of free citizens, Grandma’s right to self defense is inviolable. And that by her having that right, occasional losses due to mistake or misadventure are, while perhaps regrettable, justifiable.

Who is right?

Antis, who have conflated the words “gun” and “violence,” think that if guns are eliminated, so too will be the violence.  The evidence points elsewhere. Spectacular knife attacks have become common in China and increasingly so in the US. Suicides would continue apace, via hanging or overdose or high dives. The criminally insane would remain so, and would evolve more devious, evil plots, such as propane explosions or mass poisonings.

Supporters, who believe in the goodness of free citizens, would be disappointed. Humans are imperfect. We suffer losses, desire revenge, some become gradually insane. Murders would continue, lover’s quarrels or jealous rages ending in gunfire. Crimes would continue in spite of the shopkeeper’s shotgun.

Neither side is right to demand perfection; it is an impossible dream. But here is something that we could do: directly address the issues. Quit arguing about prison population and leniency. There are plenty of laws on the books – use them, enforce them, and imprison those who demonstrate a lack of empathy, values, or self control. Thuggery must be abhorred rather than glorified (read the lyrics to “When I feel like it” by Fabolous as a homework assignment). The criminally insane must be treated compassionately; it is time to again fund institutions for their housing and treatment.

These actions, rather than their desired prescriptions, would make neither side happy.
 
Which means that it’s probably the right thing to do.