Events like the dreadful Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, Conn. make it increasingly clear that we are living in a culture of violence. Daily, the media and others bombard us with visual illustrations of the horrors that can
Events like the dreadful Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, Conn. make it increasingly clear that we are living in a culture of violence. Daily, the media and others bombard us with visual illustrations of the horrors that can arise from the ferocity of human conduct. And it appears that many of us are becoming inured to the role in our lives that these conditions create. But when the tragedy of a violent occurrence overwhelms us, belatedly we seek answers as to the cause and solutions for its prevention.
How one feels about a governmental response to the Newtown massacre is probably subsumed in one’s attitude toward governmental structure and its role. Most of us accept that our government’s powers originate from our Constitution, its provisions and the laws enacted in accordance with it. But we may well be divided along political lines about governmental scope. Most Republicans rely to a greater extent on individual rather than governmental action, but Democrats seem to have evolved from President Kennedy’s call to ask not what your government can do for you and ask instead what you can do for your government and are looking increasingly for government protection.
Alert to the public abhorrence to the Newtown tragedy, President Obama has promised a course that is to be implemented by presidential orders as well as seeking new laws to be requested from Congress.
On Jan. 16, the president revealed his program in an artfully staged event accompanied by four young children to dramatize his concern. He offered 23 directives mostly of procedural nature and urged Congressional action to strengthen gun ownership requirements and to outlaw public ownership of certain weapons. Compliance with his program is stated to have a cost of $500 million annually.
It seems inevitable that after each major shooting there would be a public clamor for gun control measures to be enacted. This call has popular appeal, but it contains several problems. The Second Amendment to our Constitution provides quite clearly that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is broad based support to avoid any erosion in this security. But apart from this constitutional safeguard, there are important aspects to consider.
Some advocates of gun control would like to see the Second Amendment to the Constitution repealed or amended, but that was not a request made by President Obama. If the amendment is retained, any legislation such as that introduced by Senator Feinstein to ban certain guns and limit ammunition would need to overcome in Congress and, if enacted, in the inevitable legal appeal, the contention that if it is an individual’s right to bear arms, it is an infringement of that right if the individual does not have the accompanying right to bear the arms of his or her choice.
An ugly reality that governmental officials do not like to discuss is that government has been almost totally powerless to prevent evildoers from being be able to obtain guns. Prior state legislation, imposing bans simply have not been effective. The issue really is what can be done to protect the law abiding citizens against the threat of criminal jeopardy to the lives of their families and themselves.
The police and the laws supporting them are powerful forces for order in our society. But the police are not geared to prevention, their primary role is apprehension of perpetrators and application of legal process following a criminal act.
In most instances if the homeowner is to be secure against an intruder it will be incumbent upon him to act for himself. The safety accompanying possession of a firearm is not absolute. Too often it does not work and accidents do occur. But it does not seem the better choice to deprive people from having the opportunity to protect themselves. Having a gun does not appeal to everyone. The Second Amendment, though, is a right not an obligation, and it should be respected.
In 2011 following the tragic incident in Tucson in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was seriously injured and others were killed, President Obama issued some thoughtful words deploring violence and urging civility in public affairs.
His comments were right on the mark. There is simply no justification for the use of violence in seeking political objectives. Regrettably, however, the president has not availed himself of opportunities to follow up on his expression in cases such as the occurrence of violation by workers in Michigan relating to right to work legislation. The interdiction against violence should be applicable whether the people who are using it are supporting a cause favored by the governing authority or not.
In all of its forms violence is a blight on our society. The mass killings that have occurred are reprehensible and tragic. A solution to end them is an important need. But intruding on the right of our citizenry to protect their lives and their families lives is also a fundamental concern. The volume of homicidal felonies by holders of gun permits is minimal.
It is tempting to consider use of armed protection for our children in school but the cost of comprehensive coverage is massive and its efficacy is uncertain.
Unless the government can establish that it can control gun access by our criminal and sociopathic elements, in my view, our law-abiding citizens should continue to have access to appropriate weapons for their protection.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
