Warning: The
forthcoming blog post contains some of my socio-political beliefs.
Warning: If you think
me some sort of monster because of them, not only am I not sorry, I am actually
quite happy to have offended you so.
Warning: You have
been warned.
The media coverage in the aftermath of last week’s incident
leaves me somewhere between shock and rage.
In less than 48 hours, ABCNews had already begun framing the “debate”
for “gun control” with (mis)leading “facts,” including a Gallop poll with
absolutely no indication of the sample size or demographics involved. When I watched the other night, I literally
threw up in my mouth a little. This
brings me to my first point.
Freedom of Speech does NOT equal Freedom from
Responsibility.
“But Cydearrm,” you may ask, “what does that mean?” Because I’m an opinionated guy, I’ll be happy
to explain. A mainstay of codified
journalistic standards, alongside accuracy (among other things), is
objectivity. Sadly, most news sources
have completely abandoned this tenet. I’ll
reference ABCNews again, as that was what I actually watched. During the broadcast, the anchor repeatedly
emphasized that the weapons used were “high-powered rifles,” and mentioned “America’s
appetite for guns.” It’s bad enough that
the media glorifies the people who commit these atrocities by putting their
names and faces on national television and the internet (don’t forget applying
catchy monikers like “the Batman killer”), which can only serve to motivate
others to perform their own violence, but then they push an agenda with their
reporting. This all happens, of course,
while not reporting an attempted hospital shooting that was stopped by trained,
armed, law enforcement personnel. Also
not reported: a school attack in China
where over 20 people were killed. The
weapon used? A knife.
In case you weren’t paying attention, the not-so-objective
media outlet is not-so-subtly pushing for the not-so-objective agenda of more
gun laws. Apparently, making it more
difficult for the sane, responsible, law-abiding majority of Americans to own
weapons will stop these things from happening.
Here’s my second point.
Criminals, by definition, are not deterred by laws.
Case in point in current events: Drugs.
Case in point in American history:
Alcohol. The only thing the “War
on Drugs” accomplished was to strengthen the most organized drug cartels. Prohibition only made organized crime richer
and bolder. Restricting gun ownership or
purchasing is only going to make gun dealers richer. Supply and demand.
I suppose now would be a good time to point out that
Switzerland’s gun ownership rate is very high due to its mandatory military
service. The vast majority of weapons
owned there are the very same “high-powered rifles” that the media was so kind
to demonize the other night. Their rate
of gun crimes is absurdly low, as well.
What I’m trying to get at is that there isn’t a correlation one way or
the other between gun ownership and gun crime.
Next, I think I’ll rant about the legality of limiting the
ability of Americans to own guns. To put
it bluntly, it isn’t legal. I’ll point
you to both the traditional interpretation of the second amendment, and to District
of Columbia vs. Heller. Both state that
the second amendment refers specifically to an individual’s right to a weapon. “But Cydearrm,” you might ask, “what about
the safety of our children?” To which I
might reply, “why not arm teachers?
Israel does, and they don’t have problems with school shootings.” I might also reply “why not detail armed,
uniformed, law enforcement personnel to the schools?” The high schools in my area have them. Not only are serious investigations (drug
dealing, bomb threats, etc) handled more quickly, but the students at my alma
mater genuinely liked and looked up to my stepfather during his several years
on detail there. Sounds like a win-win
situation.
I think gun control should be one of the hard questions we
look at as a society. However, I don’t
think this is a problem you can legislate away.
I’m convinced that taking guns away from the rest of us won’t actually
help things, and I think giving up our constitutional rights is about the worst
possible thing to do right now. This
finally leads to my last point, which I’ll close with. A quote, from Ben Franklin.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
