Guns N Roses

Here's something amazing. The big topics of news, which in the US is always focused inwards, because we can barely understand Iraq, a war that happens over there, was Don Imus and the Duke lacrosse team. Well, as long you care about sports news, which is really, really US centric, to no one's surprise. It tells you how important sports are to people.

And that amazing thing? Race is more important than guns. A lot more important.

What do I mean by that? People have strong opinions about race, though now it's a matter of free speech vs. the harmony of a particular race, in this case, African Americans, rather than something worse, about the stratification of society and how some people deserve to be in a certain spot in society. Thank goodness that's a fringe discussion at best.

But whenever some tragedy involving guns comes out, something like the Virgina Tech massacre, someone (like Mr. Tony) says that we should serious think about gun control, and yet, there's no one as passionate as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or women's groups or the Anti-Defamation League all banding together to wage this battle (to use, alas, military terms, as people seem to do all the time).

The difference, I suppose, is that people who like guns really, really like them, even as the arguments made are often simple.

Here are the points that are usually trotted out. The Constitution gives the right to bear arms. People say that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Also, if there is some bad guy with a gun, he can be stopped by you, who also has a gun. Thus, it moves the idea of defense from the police, which is assumed to be ineffective because there aren't enough of them, to the individual. And further, it assumes that because you are a law-abiding individual, then you will of course, be completely reasonable in your actions. It paints the world into good and bad, and you know you're good, and they're bad.

But this strikes me as pretty simple minded. These advocates can not really point to a country with unfettered access to guns that lives in this utopia. Really, they advocate a form of the Wild West, and believe that's the best way to handle things. What about little kids who can now get access to guns? How do you prevent them from accidentally killing themselves or someone else? Lock up the weapons?

And if you're an advocate of hunting, why do you need complete unfettered access to any gun? That leads to the slippery slope argument. If you restrict one kind of gun, then you can restrict another and another, and pretty soon no one will have guns (isn't that the idea?).

The difference in these arguments is that, with race, few people will publicly say discrimination is a good thing, but many people who like guns are passionate in a way that anti-gun folks are not passionate. Let's face it, people are more passionate when they are under siege. This is why a comment like "nappy-headed hos" gets so much airplay. It insults a group. The group seeks to protect itself. Being anti-gun is not a group that gets insulted, that feels the need for protection. Those who own and use guns are organized. Ultimately, unless those people who are anti-gun are organized and well-funded, those who advocate guns will win.

Even now, with this tragedy, people will say that we should not be too hasty. Unfettered gun access is the solution.

There's all sorts of restrictions you could imagine. For example, only allow a gun of a certain size. Hunting rifles are huge, and hard to wield in a concealed fashion, Arnold Schwarzenegger movies aside.

And for self-defense? Why is it important to have lethal force? It seems that there are plenty of ways to try to incapacitate a person, and that this is worth the lack of certainty of clearly defending yourself. You could imagine tasers (though I think distance would create an issue), some kind of mace gun, tear gas, etc. Indeed, the police have been considering use of non lethal violence to incapacitate the other person.

That such reasonable alternatives are not brought out shows how the arguments are totally silly. The point is people who have guns want to keep them, and arguments of self-defense are almost always ridiculous.

A few years ago, a kid was going to a Halloween party. He was from Japan, an exchange student. Alas, it wasn't exactly Halloween, and furthermore, he went to the wrong house. As he left to find the correct house, the guy yells out "Freeze!", which he doesn't understand, and keeps walking. He shoots and kills the teen. This was a huge controversy in Japan, but barely registered a blip. He was within his rights, according to Louisiana law to kill this kid. This law-abiding individual, were he not to have a gun, would not have been able to kill the kid. And how many thieves did he stop since having a gun? All due to an innocent error.

Mr. Tony was paid a visit by Peter Yarrow, and in principle, if he had had a weapon, he could have killed this trespasser, and there would simply be Paul and Mary. And he may have been within his rights to do so.

The guy who went on a rampage at Virginia Tech? He bought the guns legally. This would, surprise, make him law-abiding. Indeed, gun access is so easy, that it's enough for a first timer to get a gun and carry out violent acts. Unfortunately, a whole class of guns would have to be removed from public use and banned so that even criminals couldn't get easy access to them.

Somehow, though, gun advocates live in this fantasy land. They look at other countries that ban guns and have low murder rate and scream la-la-la, that is different, they are idiots, go America!

Sadly, nothing much will come of this. People will be sad, but it will take a charismatic person of some degree to make a dent in what many people see as an odd fundamental right.