Firearms remain a distinctly American obsession. Unsurprisingly, this feverishly religious fixation has ordained guns alongside the infallible icons of baseball, apple pie and NASCAR. While the rest of the civilized world has abandoned such instruments of technological feat and individual dignity, we have survived this strange, globally endemic wave of demasculinization by preserving our right — constitutional right, that is — to bear arms.
The constitution reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The point is clear and rather straightforward. We the people — or part-time emergency militiamen — are entitled to gun ownership to ensure our autonomy and protection from our new central government that, like in Britain, can potentially turn itself against its own people. In this case, it is perfectly understandable and retrospectively insightful that our forefathers eliminated the possibility of an authoritarian America because at their time, guns were equated with power and freedom and, thus, revolution.
Things have changed since 1787. Guns still, in some sense, represent power, freedom and revolution, possibly in socially underdeveloped and politically unstable countries or in the National Rifle Association headquarters. However, other devices have replaced those antiques and proven to be our modern leverage against institutional authority. Personal computers, the Internet and even YouTube have created an inversed Orwellian state, where the people constantly monitor the regime for signs of deviation from the ideal. Even in 1989, during the Tiananmen Square incident, the Chinese government virtually silenced their bloody crackdown of student protests by simply disabling foreign media coverage and demonstrating the political muscles of the firearm. Now, in 2007, the pervasiveness and accessibility of the Internet allowed the free world to observe the Burmese junta violently but hesitantly terminating civil disobedience protests in real time. Such phenomenon exposed the unusual self-consciousness of the Burmese military and the very source of the junta’s new sense of reservation and caution — the Internet.
In the light of new revelations of school shootings, one of which occurred and one of which was thwarted, we must ask why these terrifyingly similar incidents still happen even after Columbine, even after Virginia Tech, even after those painful, frustrating moments where we vowed to implement change, even after realizing guns are no longer weapons of self-preservation for ordinary citizens. Today, guns are necessary tools for the police, military and recreational hunters, not for a mentally instable 14-year-old. How many more innocent students, teachers, friends, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters will die until we do something tangibly effective to remedy this distinctly American tragedy? The problem at hand is unquestionably complex and will require more than a few gun-control laws.
One thing for sure, the problem is not that guns are inherently evil. In the same spirit, the problem is not that our young boys are playing games with fake guns. The problem is that our young boys are playing with real guns. The problem is that those young boys are also bullied, mentally volatile, naive, vindictive and suicidal. The problem is that the parents and the schools leave them unattended, unmonitored and unknown. The problem is that when a school shooting happens, we believe it will be the last. We are wrong — terribly mistaken — and thus, we are all liable.
Resolution of this dilemma will most likely take decades, if not generations. It will involve the participation of you and me as socially responsible, genuinely concerned and proactively conscious citizens. We can learn from our European and Asian counterparts in a manner that does not interfere with our cultural identity but in a way that requires us to be open, sensible and reasonable. Even in rural America, where the gun speaks law and order, we must gradually evolve into a culture where law and order are fully sufficient for civil stability. In the meantime, we must stop exploiting the Second Amendment to justify our pathetic, quasi-patriotic, petty imitations of antediluvian, cowboy-esque individualism. Rather, the clause should be respected symbolically in the context of its historical reality, progressive activism and unconventional wisdom. In short, our society must be willing to gamble on mutual trust and mutual peace. The prospects are too tempting.
—Soo Yang is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Science.
Response to those who disagree
Thanks for all your responses.
I just don't understand how arming the population will create a deterrent effect. In purely statistical terms, you will have more gun-related accidents just because of the accessibility and proliferation of firearm. And, humans, as many of you have suggested, are not the most perfect beings, and even most of us who don't have a criminal history or mental illness will inevitably fall in fits of passion and irrationality where having a gun would not be the safest situation. In fact, I would be surprised if our country did not fall into a bloody frenzy a day after all Americans were provided with guns. It's not that hard to imagine.
Contrary to your comments, I too believe that humans "will allways succumb to the innate desire to control others and assert their power over them" with guns in their hands. And, in that sense, I fully agree that "man's basic propensity for evil," violence, and murder will not change. That is exactly why we must eliminate gun ownership among ordinary citizens since it only fuels our innate, dark tendencies in most cases. If we can't change our genetic makeup, we must change our policies to compensate for our shortcomings. Please, don't criticize me for being too hopeful or idealistic. I only believe that humans, as much as evil we possess, have a possibility of building a safe, peaceful, tolerant culture by understanding our basic propensity for good. We have already progressed so much in our human history with this sort of attitude, and we are continuing eradicate violence, repression, antisemitism, slavery, racism, homophobia, etc with the similar approach. As long as we are willing to admit our innate evil and seeking to actively overcome this evil with our propensity for good, we can truly change the way how this world works. In the same light, as long as we are willing to admit our irresponsibility with guns and seeking to actively overcome this problem with meaningful policies, we can truly proliferate mutual trust and mutual peace.
A very good article
I just wanted to say I thought this was a very good article. I may never understand why people would feel more comfortable in a room where everyone is packing heat. What is this nostalgia for the Wild West all about? I went to a High School where there would occasionally be the discovery that someone was carrying a weapon. It was never a good feeling.
You're point about the internet being a much more effective tool for curbing government power is very good and I thought well put. I've often been upset that people will justify high levels of guns as a way to prevent the government grabbing too much power and then give the Patriot Act a green light. There are many more effective ways of preventing tyranny.
A very good article. Thanks.
This is such a sophmoric
This is such a sophmoric opinion. I agree that the internet is a great force for freedom. But to take your example further, the military junta of Burma cut off all internet access to stop the outside world from knowing the full extant of their actions. Without the media glare and people able to communicate, the slaughter of thousands of monks, who were totally disarmed, continued. So that for your idealistic hope that we have progressed beyond the power of the gun. Once anyone decides that they 1) do not care what others think and will go ahead and brutally slaughter people, then the internet and utube is irrevelant to the people getting killed. The only way to survive is to run or fight. Eventually you run out of room to run and have no other choice to fight or surrender and hope on the fallible mercy of the enemy.
Mankind will allways succumb to the innate desire to control others and assert their power over them. Petty clerks to tyrannical dictators. The only way to really combat them is say you can not force me, since I have the means to fight back.
Katrina happened not so long ago and since a culture of lawlessnes was normal in New Orleans, the situation quickly devolved to looters and criminals and police leaving the remaining population helpless or joining the crimal class themselves. People in order to protect their property had to resort to fireams. And then the police tried to take that final protection from them also.
You have not the knowlwdge or education or just plain wisdom and experience to realize that the human condition does not change. Lawlessness will continue as long as society permits it. When criminals get charged 25 times in Philadelphia and never stay in jail. I understand the same is true in San Francisco.Then the people percieve the authorities as not really interested in protecting them. Criminality increases and basic survival needs take over. Many will join the criminal class as the only way to survive and that increases the pressure on those who try to stay lawabiding.
Society is changing the degree of permissiveness and many states have enacted stand your ground laws. Many normal people are enacting justice by exercising their right of self defense. One man in Texas has stop robberies of his property twice in one month and two of those criminals will never prey again. Once the general populace refuse to permit lawlessness, then the amount of young criminals will diminish since it will not be worth the risk.
Despite the perception of violence in American society , the actual risk of home invasion is much less than in England. Muggings are very common in England, several time the rate in the US. We still have a large amount of people dieing from guns, but that number includes the justified homicides , the people who die from police action and normal self defense.The other is often criminals preying on each other. We have a very large criminal class and culture in our large cities. Those cities are often the very places that permit criminals to reoffend and restrict the right of self defense. So crime is greater there.
So the second amendment is very much relevant today as it was 200 years ago.
It will take a long time for decency to become popular and infect the criminal class and the rappers that glorify pimping and drug dealing and dealing death for disrespect. But the need for guns for personal as well as recreational use will still be around.
RE: Americans must take gun control seriously
I must say that you are devoid of understanding the true reason that the Founders of this nation insisted upon the right to keep and bear arms. Although you admit that tyranny existed in 1787, and exists now, somehow you equate words spoken and written, with the power and force of arms.
It is obvious that Hamilton and Madison understood far more that you give them credit for, and perhaps far more than you will ever understand when they framed the passage in the Federalist 51, explaining why our country has the government that our constitutions (state and federal) dictate and why we have the right to keep and bear arms:
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Now, take the above statement and apply the principles contained in it to yourself, the Chinese, the folks in Burma, and everyone else: What does the above statement declare about us? What did the Founders of this country understand about man and man's nature?
Taking away and/or denying access to guns absolutely will not solve a problem of man's basic nature. In fact, all it will insure is that certain among us will amass arms and brutally oppress everyone around them. All of us are evil, and we tend that way without any assistance or encouragement whatsoever. If the Founders of this country knew that all men were evil back then, and force, or the threat of force is required to keep us in line; when did that change? Just when did man's basic propensity for evil change?
The fact is: it hasn't. Moreover, it never will. The basic nature we are born with, will not change unless an external power changes it. To claim that we (mankind, or the race of man) can somehow make ourselves pure by our own efforts, it to defy all the evidence we see in this world. Once something has begun to decay, it does not, and cannot purify itself. Even in nature, we do not see the animals changing their nature. Cats do not begin to act like dogs, and deer to not act like squirrels -- that would require a change in the basic nature of the animal. That, my friend, simply does not happen.
The founders of this nation knew there were and are only two possible solutions to the problem of man's nature:
1. Everyone has an immediate, simultaneous change in their basic nature so that none of us are evil any more. (A highly unlikely event -- in fact, impossible.)
2. Arm everyone. The fear factor alone will keep the vast majority of people in line. Incidentally, it will also stop all forms of dictatorship by government. (The point of the above discourse in the Federalist 51.)
Sadly, you have bought a lie: hook, line and sinker. That lie is that somehow mankind has begun to rise above his basic nature. Moreover, you have believed another lie, which is that someone bent on oppressing, or destroying you is somehow going to respect what you say. And, the fact that others are watching is supposed to somehow deter them. Hate to inform you, there are folks in this world who will listen to what you say, and then laugh as they crush your skull. These are the same folks who also delight in showing the world how they slaughter others.
The only reason why that many of those perpetrating this kind of evil hide it, is strictly due to the fact that they fear retribution -- in the form of the force of arms.
By the way, you should be able to figure out that a gun makes the 60 year old granny fully equal to a strapping 20 year old man. You do know that don't you?
In addition, James Madison made it plain that being individually armed was an advantage that we, as Americans, enjoyed over the people of many other nations:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." (Federalist 46)
You need a better education.
The Solution: More Guns, More Places
First of all, let's leave the interpretation of the constitution up to the Supreme Court, it's kind of their job. That aside, your proclamation that people should rely on "mutual trust and mutual piece" seems a little naive to say the least. Your view of humanity is a little more optomistic than mine. The fact is that there are so many firearms all over this country that it will be impossible to reclaim them all. If we did, by some miracle, get them all back, that would just give Mexicans one more thing to carry on their backs when they parade across our border. The difference is that the guns would then be sold on the black market to psycho's and delinquents instead of responsible citizens intending to protect themselves and their families. No, getting rid of guns won't be the solution. Instead, I propose a different solution. Get more guns, and have them everywhere.
The fact is that psycho's (except possibly teenage ones) are going to get guns one way or another, illegally or legally. Putting gun laws in place will only delay the inevitable and make them go through one extra step to get them. Only, this time, the government has no record of whether the gun was sold to the psycho or not. So given the fact that these would-be murderers will get weapons no matter what laws are in place, what do we do to stop them? I propose we arm the citizens who aren't mentally deranged. In this manner, we will limit the number of deaths that occur when these mass murders go on rampages.
The crazy thing about murderers that proponents of gun laws don't get is that murderers don't really care too much about laws if they are willing to kill. For instance, gun-free school zone laws. It baffles many proponents of gun laws that Cho Seung-Hui (the Virginia Tech killer) didn't follow the no-gun laws on campus. Instead, he massacred 32 people unabated, then himself. He took the time to reload, maybe his hands even got a little tired. At Columbine in 1999, twelve students were killed by two teenage students. Eerily enough, they too didn't follow the school's no-gun policy. Contrast those killings with the shooting at a school in Santee California in 2001 (you probably didn't hear about this one): A student began a rampage similar to the Columbine incident. The school went on lockdown and a trained campus supervisor approached the student. The unarmed supervisor was promptly shot. Thankfully, a police officer was taking his daughter to school and stopped the rampage with his gun. Only two students died in this incident. The difference between the latter shooting and the two former: a non-murderous citizen had a gun and put an end to the madness.
So what am I NOT proposing? Guns still shouldn't be allowed at sporting events, on airplanes (except in the pilot's cabin), or at any other public gathering where tight security is possible. But given the fact that tight security isn't always possible, and the inevitability of deranged people obtaining guns, you put guns in the hands of responsible citizens who can put an end to the madness. That means allowing guns on school campuses. You know why we never hear about mass shootings at malls or parks or any other public gathering place? Because would-be mass murderers know that many citizens do carry concealed weapons and they know they'll be kicking up diasies if they so much as flash a gun (especially in the south). No, they would much rather go to places where they can guarantee guns aren't aloud. Unforunately for us, school campuses are such places. So while you, Soo, advocate gun restriction as a solution, I propose the opposite, so that we don't have to experience the tragedy of another Virginia Tech or Columbine.