Dear Editor,
In December, an armed gunman forced his way into an elementary school in a New England town much like our own. There, he shot and killed twenty children, six staff members, and himself. Since then we’ve seen about thirty gun deaths in the United States every day—the equivalent of another Newtown massacre, again and again, day after day, with no end in sight.
This tragedy has prompted a national debate on the issues of mental health reform, classroom security, and gun safety. I was glad to see this discussion also taking place on a local level this month, initiated by Brooks Lyman’s letter to The Groton Line entitled, “Consider the Second Amendment: It Guarantees That the Citizens May Be Armed.” I actually found myself agreeing with much of Mr. Lyman’s thesis, as well as I was able to follow it:
- Gun ownership in the United States is traditionally recognized as one of our God-given or natural rights;
- Our Founding Fathers encouraged citizens to join well-regulated militia groups for community defense; and
- One potential task the Founders foresaw for such a militia was to deter or help to overthrow an overreaching Federal government, if needed.
All of these things are historically accurate statements. And while most lawful gun owners today arm themselves for the practical purposes of self-defense, property protection, hunting, or recreational marksmanship, Mr. Lyman is technically correct in proclaiming his God-given, Constitutionally protected right to safely and responsibly stockpile weapons of his choosing in case of government tyranny, zombie apocalypse, alien invasion, or whatever other catastrophe he expects might happen any day now.
Where Mr. Lyman lost me was in the subsequent tangle of faulty logic and unsupported conclusions. Setting aside the rant about not being able to sue the police when criminals drive their cars into Groton, or the revelation that most mass shooters are liberals off their Ritalin, Mr. Lyman seemed to believe he could strike a bargain to not have his Second Amendment rights limited in any way as long as he pledged not to challenge the First Amendment rights of anyone else. This is particularly silly, as the Supreme Court has consistently upheld limited restrictions to both First and Second Amendment rights in the interest of public safety.
Mr. Lyman’s letter notably mocked the effectiveness of gun-free school zones. This could have been the start of a legitimate policy debate, if only Mr. Lyman understood that these zones aren’t really gun-free in an absolute sense. They are gun-free with the exceptions you might reasonably expect. Gun-free school zones can be patrolled by armed security guards, law enforcement officers, or anyone else who is specifically authorized by the school to carry a gun. But if you don’t have authorization, there are real consequences to bringing a gun to school, and real deterrence.
Mr. Lyman seems to believe that shopping malls and movie theaters are similarly mandated gun-free zones, instead of private businesses that decide for themselves what customers are or are not allowed to bring inside. Movie theaters are gun-free zones in the same way that they are outside snack-free zones, and are often kept secure by police or security guards who really do get to carry guns (and possibly snacks).
There are four gun safety measures before Congress right now. One is an incredibly popular provision to eliminate loopholes in our universal background check system, so it keeps deadly weapons away from dangerous individuals as originally intended. The second is to provide armed guards to schools that want them, similar to a proposal by NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre. The third would make gun trafficking a Federal crime, allowing law enforcement to crack down on straw purchasers with clean records who can currently buy unlimited guns on behalf of gang members and other shady individuals. The fourth is a ban on assault weapons and oversized magazines for which no private citizen would ever have reasonable need. Even folks who are actively opposed to one or two of these measures should be able to get behind the rest.
I hope we can all have a respectful and productive discussion on these issues, dispel some common misconceptions, and find constructive ways to make our schools and public spaces safer for everyone.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg R. Fishbone
here we go! Take a look at what happened in Westford. better still read the second amendment!
I read about that attempted assault weapons ban in Westford! Crazy, right? It reminded me of when I was a kid, back during the nuclear reduction talks between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, when somebody proposed banning nuclear weapons from the City of Newton. It might have been a joke or a symbolic protest but it made no sense at all.
Could you clarify what you mean by a reasonable discussion? Usually when people specify that, they mean a discussion that affirms their existing views; which, being correct, could of course be opposed only in an unreasonable discussion.
There’s an expression I like which says that reasonable minds may disagree. If we really are able to establish ground rules, I’d also expect people to be respectful to each other and avoid ad hominem attacks, but this is the Internet so you can’t always expect that to happen. For my part, I will try my best to be both reasonable and respectful.
Greg,
I tend to agree with John Mann about “reasonable discussions.” Personally, I have no problem with partisanship or with serious, but tough discussion, including dissent. Sometimes we seem to be overly polite in our political/philosophical discussions. If someone has made a stupid comment, one should be able to point this out without resorting to personal attacks. Interestingly – and no aspersions cast here: you seem a lot more polite than most – those with a left/liberal/progressive bent seem to be the most impolite and dictatorial in their arguments. It’s one thing to believe that one is correct; it’s quite another to attack people who disagree with you, and (with the exception of a few talk-radio hosts I have heard), most conservatives seem to be a lot more polite than most liberals when dealing with their opposite numbers.
Now, if you will forgive me, I have to say that you have made some of the errors that I have seen elsewhere. And on a slightly different note, I have encountered an amazingly large amount of plain ignorance about firearms from people of all political stripes, something I intend to attempt to correct with an article on the subject sometime soon.
Regarding stockpiling arms and ammunition in case of government tyranny, zombie apocalypse, etc. There is this notion among people I sometimes refer to as “anti-gun” (though many of them are not) that the purpose is to be able to stand off the US Army, DHA, TSA, the Local SWAT Team, etc. with nothing but semiautomatic hunting rifles. It shouldn’t take much serious thought to realize that such 10-year-old-kid Rambo daydreams are nonsense (although in the case of a general anti-government guerrilla movement, the equation may change (see, for example, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). The point is to make a government that is considering tyrannical activities have second thoughts as to the potential casualties they would take in the process of trying to take down some law abiding armed citizen. It’s called a deterrent effect.
As for suing the police, you got it totally wrong. What I said was, that you can’t sue the police if they don’t get to your house in time to save your possessions, life or virtue (to use an old term) after you have called 911. There are plenty of court cases on this subject; to the best of my knowledge, the police always win. There was one in Springfield a number of years back. Look the subject up. Better yet, give Don Palma a call and ask him; he should be familiar with the subject. Or ask your lawyer. In short, the police exist to maintain public order, not to be personal bodyguards to the citizenry. Until they get there, you are on your own.
Your comment about 2nd Am. rights vs 1st Am. rights lost me completely, sorry.
Regarding “Gun-Free Zones,” I am well aware that police and armed guards hired by the schools, etc., as well as other people authorized by the institution in question can bring guns onto the campus/theater/shopping mall, etc. I happen to have such permission from MIT, as I am a Pistol Team Coach there. I am fully familiar with the laws relating to this subject. The point is, that most such venues do not have policemen or armed guards on hand – or insufficient numbers of them if they do – and the proclaiming of a “Gun-Free Zone,” with the restrictions on most staff and other law-abiding (but licensed to carry a gun) citizens is, as I and many other people have stated, simply the proclaiming of an “Unarmed Target Zone.” The idea of allowing licensed citizens to carry guns on a school campus is called deterrence. The uncertainty of an attackers not knowing whether there will be armed citizens on hand to foil his nefarious plans is a very large deterrent. It’s certainly not perfect deterrence, but then, nothing is – not even an armed guard at the front door (use another door to enter for nefarious purposes).
As for private venues such as theaters and malls, the same basic rules and situations apply: “Gun-Free Zones” are more likely to be targeted by mass killers than non-”Gun-Free Zones.” Simple logic. Who sets the “Gun-Free Zone” policy really doesn’t matter. In many states (unlike Massachusetts) colleges are not statutorily mandated “Gun-Free Zones,” (federal gun-free school zone law only covers K-12, not colleges) and set their own policies on the subject.
As to the four bills before the Congress that you mention, I have some expertise here. As a federally licensed gun dealer, I am familiar with the current National Instant Check System (NICS), which is currently only available to licensed dealers. The privacy and abuse problems of extending the NICS to various private sales are real and difficult to solve. And the biggest problem with the NICS system is the various mental health lobbies and the ACLU who work to prevent data on those mentally ill who should not be permitted to purchase guns from being reported to the NICS database.
Armed guards in schools is probably not a bad idea. On the other hand, consider the GDR Middle School (two large buildings) and the GDR High School – one very large building. How many guards will it take to adequately secure those monsters? As an alternative to some of those guards, consider scrapping the “Gun-Free Zone” law and allowing teachers and administrators with gun licenses to keep a gun (securely locked up, of course) in their offices or classrooms.
As for straw buyers, that is already illegal. The fact that Atty. General Holder and the Justice Department deliberately allowed over 2000 guns to be sold to straw buyers with the expectation that those buyers would sell them to Mexican drug cartels (at the cost to date of over 200 Mexican lives and several US lives) does not make straw buyers legal. No further laws needed, just some little thing called enforcement (and maybe a little morality on the part of the Obama Administration).
As for so-called “assault weapons,” they are simply semi-automatic rifles of a more modern design and materials than the ones that have been used by Americans for over 100 years. So they look “military” and are black (black = evil? Sounds racist to me.) Banning large-capacity magazines sounds so wonderful until you realize how fast it is to change magazines of any size – or even reload a 6-shot revolver. But if you are a woman at home facing a home invasion by three rapists, it’s nicer to have 20 or 30 rounds in the magazine of an easy-to-shoot AR-15 than 2 shots in the double barreled 12 GA shotgun recommended by Vice President Biden – or the “rape” whistle recommended by Colorado State Senator Salazar….
We’re not going to be able to do much about the rare wackos who go around shooting kids in schools to get their name – even posthumously – in the papers – if they don’t have guns, they’ll use bombs or Molotov Cocktails. The real problem – the huge majority of murders, most committed with guns, is inner-city gang crime, whether revenge killings or “turf” wars or just macho hair-trigger killings because someone thought he was “dissed.” These murders do not involve “assault weapons,” but handguns, but since the 20 kids killed in Newtown, CT were mostly nice white kids, while the 500 killed in Chicago last hear (for example) were mostly black or Hispanic gangbangers, we get all upset about the 20 and write off the 500 and tell ourselves that we aren’t racists….
You almost had me. You made a few interesting points, but then you had to go and accuse folks of being racist because they hate black guns, and now I don’t know whether you actually believe that or are making a particularly tasteless joke. The victims of gun crime come in all colors and ethnicities, so you don’t strengthen your arguments by making them on racial lines. It’s hard for me to address any of your other statements while I’m picking my jaw up off the floor.
Our government has never been deterred from any tyrannical action by the fact that citizens have access to guns. If our government is deterred, it’s because citizens have access to information and the ability to organize, sign petitions, donate time and money to political causes, write editorials, and to vote on election day. And that’s even allowing for your assumption that the government is some monolithic entity that could plot against the citizenry. In reality, the government is a group of mostly well-intentioned people in two mostly well-intentioned parties, divided into three branches with a system of checks and balances designed by some of the greatest political geniuses of all time. It’s not a perfect system, but it is one of the best in the history of the world. It doesn’t need to be propped up with guns.
Although this is about a month late, I happened upon an interesting and related article in Scientific American that I thought I’d share: http://bit.ly/181GgPE
Cheers,
Art