SIX
WAYS TO DIMINISH GUN-VIOLENCE
SYNOPSIS:
How long should United States tolerating violence
with guns?
Some people buy guns with the specific aim of killing other people.
Why should we allow such murderous behavior?
We can help to make our culture more civilized by limiting access
to guns.
And we can put proven killers into safe environments
until they are no longer dangerous.
OUTLINE:
1.
STOP REGARDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS HOLY WRIT.
2.
OUTSPEND THE NRA.
3.
REGISTER GUN-OWNERS
AND CREATE GUN-SPONSORS.
4.
REMOVE ASSAULT RIFLES FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
5.
PROFILE LIKELY MASS MURDERERS.
6.
KEEP LIKELY KILLERS IN SAFE PLACES.
RESULTS:
One
person who is now alive will not be dead
if we make any of these changes.
The alternative is to do nothing
and allow the killings to continue.
SIX
WAYS TO DIMINISH GUN-VIOLENCE
by
James Leonard Park
1. STOP REGARDING THE
SECOND AMENDMENT AS HOLY WRIT.
People who believe that the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution
is an unchangeable principle of American democracy should think again.
The notion that Americans have an unchallengable "right to bear arms"
seems odd to other civilized countries.
The Second Amendment is over 200 years old.
And it is printed on paper, not chiseled in stone.
And even without changing the actual words of the Second
Amendment,
it would be possible to diminish gun-violence in the USA.
The stated background reason for allowing gun-ownership
is to have well-organized
units of the National Guard.
Two hundred years ago militias and posses were necessary
because local law-enforcement depended on volunteers
rather than policemen and policewomen paid by taxes.
And in some places fire protection is still provided by volunteers.
But there are probably no
volunteer police departments.
And in the USA, we do not
permit private armies.
When such volunteer law-enforcement
did exist,
the armed men kept everyone focused on their common
purpose.
If one of them started shooting people at random,
the other members of the armed group would have restrained them,
even to the extent of killing
the killers
if they could not be stopped
in any
other way.
The world has changed tremendously over the last 200
years.
And the U.S. Constitution has evolved right along with the rest of
society.
For example, does anyone object to having an Air Force,
even tho nothing of that kind was ever mentioned in the Constitution?
We did not bother to change the Constitution
every time we needed something beyond the armies and navies
mentioned in our organizing document.
Thus, organizing our common life together
probably does not require changing any words of the Constitution.
But if such changes are necessary,
the Constitution itself provides ways for making amendments.
If we find that absurd
conclusions are being drawn from the original
words,
we can clarify the
reasonable meanings (a function of the Supreme Court)
or we can change the actual
words (a function of legislatures).
2. OUTSPEND THE NRA.
Fear of the National Rifle Association is often cited
as the basic reason that legislators do not create meaningful
gun-control.
They know from the bitter experience of other lawmakers
that if they offend the gun-lobby,
they will be targeted for
defeat in
the next election.
Or even worse, there will be a recall election
in which the only issue is gun-control.
Of course, in any such single-issue special 'election',
the gun-lobby will send many people to the polls.
But the National Rifle Association has only 4
million members
—less
than
the population of the State of Minnesota.
So why should they dictate gun-policy for the
whole USA?
Perhaps because the groups attempting to control guns
are so weak.
But we American have the capacity to organize ourselves
into groups that
serve the public interest.
And what better goal could we fund
than changing laws to
prevent the
killing
of kids?
Let's call our gun-control lobby: Double Your Money.
If the NRA targets a particular legislator or candidate for defeat
because that person has promised to support gun-control,
then Double Your Money could offer to put twice as much money
toward the campaign as was donated by the NRA
and the gun manufacturers.
(How
much of the NRA's money
comes from arms manufacturers and dealers?)
If the NRA gives one million dollars to
defeat
candidate Ms. Disarmament,
let Double Your Money donate two
million dollars to defend
Ms.
Disarmament.
We still do have a free country, which means (among other things)
that we can support any candidates and/or causes we wish.
When candidates supporting gun-control are
named enemies of the NRA,
then they should call upon Double Your Money for financial
contributions
that will overwhelm
the money put into advertising by the
NRA.
Each and every argument of those who favor the wider distribution of
guns
can be answered by a counter-argument
from the people who favor a less-armed nation and world.
Double Your Money could have video programs ready to
be used.
These would be presentations favoring various forms of gun-control.
They could be put into the relevant media markets within hours
of learning that a certain candidate has been targeted by the NRA.
And experience will show which videos are most effective
in supporting the cause of diminishing gun violence.
Each video could end with an appeal for more money
from the people who see it:
"This point of view can be more widely known
if peace-loving people will fund wider distribution of this video."
If Double Your Money gathers enough cash
from peace-loving people,
then no lawmaker or candidate will ever say again
that it is impossible to have gun-control in the USA
because American gun-policy is dictated by the National Rifle
Association.
3. REGISTER GUN-OWNERS AND CREATE GUN-SPONSORS.
Nothing in the Second Amendment prohibits
gun-registration.
About half of Americans have guns in their homes.
And most of these people do not plan to use their guns to kill
people.
So law-abiding gun-owners should not oppose registering
themselves,
especially if they know that all
other gun-owners will also be
registered.
Perhaps one of their reasons for wanting to have
guns at home
is to protect themselves from attack and robbery by other people with
guns.
They do have a right to shoot people who attack them.
When Americans wish to buy (more) guns and/or
ammunition,
they should be asked to register
their reasons for making these
purchases.
Self-defense and hunting will be the main reasons given.
When hunters want to buy guns to hunt animals,
they will obviously buy guns and ammo appropriate for
killing animals.
And hunting is not usually a solitary pursuit:
Hunters like to go hunting with other hunters.
And they will be careful with their guns so that no other hunter gets
hurt.
For example, they take guns out of the hands of their hunting
companions
when they become too drunk and irrational to handle deadly
weapons.
No hunter wants to be shot by accident by a hunting companion.
Likewise, they do not want to be killed as the result of some petty
dispute
that arises within the hunting party.
Responsible
hunters want to keep everyone safe.
One way to put this practice into law
would be to require each hunter to name three gun-sponsors.
These would be drawn from their own family members
and from hunting companions.
When they sign up to be gun-sponsors for one another,
they are saying that they will keep an eye on one another,
making certain that the guns are used only for valid hunting
purposes.
And if one of the hunters does commit some crime
using a gun,
then the three gun-sponsors will also be called to answer with him.
Were they fulfilling their duty to watch over the named gun-owner?
The local
police should register gun-owners.
Police will investigate the stated reasons for owning guns.
Does this prospective gun-owner have any experience with
hunting?
Are
the gun-sponsors also real hunters?
Has
the prospective gun-owner completed weapons-training?
Will the guns be stored safely?
Is the owner of every legitimate gun registered with the police?
Do the local police have a sample bullet fired from every registered
gun?
Can the serial number of each gun be traced to the registered
owner?
Urban drug-dealers who want guns to protect
themselves
will not be able to claim that they want to hunt deer or ducks.
It will be difficult for drug-dealers to find gun-sponsors
because most of the people they know who own guns
are also involved in illegal drug-dealing.
The same would hold true for members of Mafia
families:
They will not find legitimate gun-owners to be their
sponsors.
Other criminals do not want to register with the local police.
And anyone who plans mass murders
also will not be able to find legitimate gun-sponsors
who will testify that such plotters have legitimate reasons
for wanting to buy their arsenals of guns and ammunition.
4. REMOVE ASSAULT RIFLES
FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
Whenever people apply to buy guns,
they should be asked to explain why they need guns.
Hand guns might be sold for personal protection.
These can fire one bullet at a time,
possibly killing only the intended person who was a threat.
Guns that fire many bullets in quick succession
are not appropriate for defense.
But repeating rifles are quite effective for committing mass murder.
Sometimes military forces should
have repeating weapons.
For example, in warfare, there might be several enemy soldiers
who must be killed as quickly as possible.
But repeating weapons are seldom needed even by
local police.
What situations would make it appropriate to fire several bullets
with a single decision to shoot?
When we allow members of the general public to have
assault weapons,
we know that these guns will more likely do serious harm to someone
than be used for any legitimate purpose of self-defense or hunting.
Repeating hand-guns could also be removed
from the general public.
What lawful purpose could they have?
And as others are also giving up their repeating weapons,
the people who claimed they needed assault weapons for self-defense
will have ever-diminishing reasons to possess guns
that can kill many people as the result of one decision.
5. PROFILE LIKELY
MASS MURDERERS.
The more deeply we study the minds of known mass
murderers,
the better we will understand what was going thru their heads
when they planned and carried forward their deadly fantasies.
We know that all such mass murderers did spend many
weeks
planning their deadly assaults.
Sometimes, other people knew about their plans in advance.
Many of them have a history of enjoying
violent video-games
that involve shooting many people for fun.
Of course, not all who enjoy such video-games will become mass
murderers.
So we need to find ways to separate the players who will never kill in
real life
from the players who are in danger of crossing the line
and buying real guns and ammunition to kill people
---in the theater, the shopping mall, the school, the college, or the
work-place.
It provides little insight merely to say that they
were all "crazy".
If they were completely out
of touch with reality,
they could not have assembled the needed weapons and
ammunition.
They would not have been able to drive themselves
to the place where they planned to kill as many people as possible.
These mass killers usually expected to be stopped
by violent means.
But they wore body-armor so they could keep killing as long as
possible.
They often were expecting to
die in the process of killing lots of
other people.
And many did kill themselves
rather than be captured or killed by the
police.
Thus, one thing that should be investigated
in profiling mass murderers
is their tendency toward irrational
suicide.
Most mass murderers knew they would die on the day of the
attack.
They showed this foresight by leaving messages to be found later.
They never expected to return to their normal, everyday
lives.
When they put on their costumes for the last act,
they knew these would be the
clothes in which they would die.
In short, there was "method in their madness".
People who have only a tenuous grasp of how the real world works
would not be able to carry forward complicated plans for mass murder.
Once we have identified individuals likely to
commit mass murder,
we need safe places to keep them until such time
as they give up all urge to kill themselves while killing others.
(Some people might be planning mayhem as you read this.)
But we have no organized ways to prevent them from killing.
Once they have made one specific step of preparation
—such
as buying guns and ammunition—
they have done enough to warrant their detention
at least for further investigation.
And if further study of the 'thinking' of mass
murderers
shows which people are likely to continue down that path,
they might have to be kept in safe prisons for the rest of their
lives.
Can they be rehabilitated to pursue productive activities?
Or do they continue to have no other purpose in life
than to go out in a blaze of
killing?
6. KEEP LIKELY KILLERS IN
SAFE PLACES.
No matter what steps we take to diminish
gun-violence,
some such violence will still take place.
We see this happen from time to time
even in those cultures that have made more progress than America
in discovering the plans and preventing the violence
that would otherwise have been committed.
But we can measure how much we have
diminished gun-violence
by the sheer number of
dangerous people
who have been put into safe environments where they can do no harm.
At any given time, there will probably be less than
100 Americans
in safe facilities to prevent them from carrying out violent
fantasies.
And some of these facilities might become expert
at helping people who are prone to violence
to recover from that
tendency.
If they gain some other purposes for their lives,
they might be safely returned to open society.
But they should be carefully watched.
And they certainly should not be allowed any access
to any of the weapons of mass
death they used to dream about.
Keeping the marginal individuals in prison or under
surveillance
will mean some loss of their personal freedom,
but that will be a small price to pay for knowing that the rest of us
will not be in danger of being killed
because of their urge toward
random mayhem.
AUTHOR:
James Leonard Park is an advocate of reasonable
gun-control.
His views are entirely his own
and do not reflect the policy of any other individuals or groups.
How has this essay changed
your thinking?
Did you previously believe that gun-control was impossible
because of the opposition of the National Rifle Association?
Do you now hope that the peace-loving majority will have its way?
Can laws be enacted to diminish gun-violence?
Can likely mass-murderers be kept in safe environments?
Can we measure how changes have diminished gun-violence?
See related on-line essays:
'Universal Gun-Registration:
Register All Gun-Owners and their Guns"
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-GUN-R.html
"National No-Guns Registry:
One-Stop Background-Check"
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-NO-GUN.html
The
essay above has now become a chapter in a book called:
Fixing
America.
Find
several additional ways to make a better future.
Created
December 19, 2012; Revised 12-20-2012; 12-21-2012; 12-22-2012;
12-30-2012;
1-3-2014; 3-6-2014; 5-25-2014; 8-8-2014;
1-27-2015; 10-9-2015;
12-3-2015;
6-14-2016; 6-24-2016; 10-3-2017; r 10-17-2017; 4-4-2019; 8-5-2021