The flip side of the gun debate

So here' s the story of a man who took a picture with the family and Santa Clause loaded with supposed guns and armaments.  OK, strike one against prudence, no matter what the props actually were.  But here's the bothersome part:

They [that is, the law] came to get him. Took him away in irons. Fingerprints. Jail cells. Humiliation. Cops confiscated the weapon. Turned out to be a BB gun. And it wasn’t exactly “pointed” at his baby; careful examination revealed only that the baby was in “close proximity” to the toy. Close enough to be arrest-worthy. Charge-worthy, too. They’re holding him without bond on “Child Endangerment.” Authorities reasoned there could have been a “substantial risk of physical harm.” 

Now that's a problem.  That's why many who are gobbling up guns at gun shows are doing just that.  It's that growing trend of the government seizing more and more power to control more and more of our lives.  It's that segment of the population that would gleefully ban guns tomorrow if they could.  It's the not-too-difficult link to establish between those yelling 'ban the guns' and those yelling 'hurrah for the HHS mandate!'  It's realizing that those who have complained about our growing police state, our government run amok  and our federal law enforcement agencies overstepping bounds are right - but they're also right when it comes to this issue as well.

As for those who spent the last ten years post-9/11 reminding us that Ben Franklin said you have to be an idiot to compromise your liberty for safety, the same applies now.  Those who have dropped that quote a thousand times who now say it's time to compromise liberty for safety are, in some ways, the most dangerous players in the debate.  For it's clear they are operating less on reasoned approaches to the debate and more on knee jerk reactions and high strung emotionalism.  

If we really, really want to get to the heart and soul of gun violence in America, we'll look at reality, facts, stats, and all such things.  We'll discuss, talk, question   We'll be honest that yes, there probably are some kooks, freaks, and dangerous people who worship guns as gods.  We'll also admit that there are others who may seem less freakish  or less kooky, but are every bit as dangerous as they see gun control and elimination as the first step toward a bright new future where they call the shots. 

The best thing is to look at what the problems are, to learn lessons from things like our reactions to 9/11, and make sure we don't repeat past mistakes.  We certainly have no time to demonize anyone and everyone who dares question our open and friendly discussions about the topic.  If the victims of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine and Virginia Tech, all the other mass killings, and all the other killings that go unnoticed except by those who are devastated by the losses are to be honored, it will be by finding the best solutions, not the ones we always wanted anyway, no matter what the problems happen to be.

When Obama is the reasonable one

So in an interview about gun control, President Obama said that gun control advocates need to listen more.  Here's a snip:

Obama says he has "a profound respect" for the tradition of hunting that dates back for generations. "And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he says.

How about that?  I know he's narrowed it to hunting only, but still. It's sure not been the case since Sandy Hook.  Almost immediate following that horrible day, you could see a profound disrespect for gun owners, no matter what anyone was saying.  Some came out and said it of course.  Gun owners are evil scum, screw them.

Others were more elusive  insisting they were saying no such thing while more or less saying just that when the opportunity arose.  Point out that measures could hinder 2nd Amendment rights, inconvenience gun owners, harm gun owners?  Who cares, the hell with them, that's their problem.  I'll give credit to those who came out and said guns and gun owners were evil and needed eradicated from our national fabric.  At least they were honest.

And in this case, so is President Obama.  While the pendulum has definitely swung in favor of sweeping gun control measures, even he is clever, wise, or simply good enough to realize there is a limit.  Something it would be nice to see as the debate continues to take place, even in the Catholic blogosphere, as another Catholic commenter noticed regarding the tenor of the conversation:

Or, maybe after several weeks of being demonized with comparisons to Nazis, slave owners, segregationists, or flat-out being called un-Catholic nutty survivalists or “Moral Escapists” (hey, new one!) by their brothers and sisters, they’re a little sensitive right now. It’s especially trying when the invective comes from people who are talking out their asses, but feel the need to exert Absolute Moral Authority anyway.

And sad to say, at least in some quarters and forums, that's exactly what's being said, or at least inferred.  And in some cases, long before Newtown.

More suicide than murders by gun

Ross Douthat, as is his manner, brings sense and clarity to an issue by focusing on something other than the two extremes of the gun issue.  I admit, I don't really have a dog in this fight, apart from the sneaking suspicion that there are those exploiting the horrible massacre at Newtown in order to advance agendas bent on eliminating this pesky freedom stuff.  Still, not having done the homework myself, I'm reluctant to throw out too many opinions.  I have no doubt there are bad apples and extremists on both sides of the debate, as there always are.

Still, I'm a bit shocked to see some things unfolding.  Ever since 9/11, and during the hellstorm debate over the Patriot Act and water boarding  I saw and read time and again, over and over, the arguments against allowing torture.  Time and again Jefferson and Ben Franklin were quoted to remind us how stupid is a country willing to compromise its liberty for safety.  And now, some of those who dropped those quotes, are saying we must be willing to give away parts of our liberty for preventing such horrible things as Sandy Hook.  That's something I'm going to reflect on for later.

My concern is that all of these gun control measures will, in fact, do nothing at all, but take us one baby step closer to being at ease with seeing [anyone else's] freedoms compromised.  The fact that I don't own an assault weapon doesn't mean I don't care about the rights to own one.  While I would be willing to look at what rules and regulations exist, I'm worried that the progressive juggernaut is gaining steam when it comes to intruding ever more into our lives.  Thinking that they will only intrude into their lives but not mine would be the height of idiocy.

Especially if these intrusions don't actually help the problem we're all clamoring to resolve.  So Mr. Douthat, always wonderful in his insights, reminds us that it might be that suicide, not murder, is the number one cause of gun death to be helped by such measures. The laws could possibly help there more than the murders, which are usually perpetrated by criminals with no intention of following laws anyway.  It's an interesting read.  Kudos to the fellow who provided the link, as well as this interesting stat from Justice Breyer’s dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller:

“From 1993 to 1997, there were 180,533 firearm-related deaths in the United States, an average of over 36,000 per year… Fifty-one percent were suicides, 44% were homicides, 1% were legal interventions, 3% were unintentional accidents, and 1% were of undetermined causes.”