So here we are again. A disturbed youth with a gun has attacked a school in Parkland, Florida and left 17 dead. Once again, we are asking, "What can we do?" Once again we engage in the argument over guns and the Second Amendment. There are those who think the answer is to get rid of guns. Then these things won't happen. We can become like Sweden. (Or perhaps, I should say Sweden in the 20th century. They have their own problems now.)
It is easy to question why a 19-year-old with a history of trouble behind him is able to purchase an AR-15 as apparently is the case with the accused Florida shooter, Nikolas Cruz. It is a reasonable question. I am all for any means of screening out people who should not be able to buy or own guns due to their criminal history or mental state. This applies to gun licenses, registration, concealed carry permits, what have you. But not even that will solve the problem.
Let's take the issue to its extreme. Let's say Congress does away with the Second Amendment. Let's say all firearms are banned from sale or possession. Just like heroin, guns are declared illegal. Let's say that all registered firearms owners in the country are directed to turn in their weapons within 30 days. Let's assume for the sake of argument that every one of them complies. Problem solved? Hardly.
The biggest problem is the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or more criminals who are running around with guns, mostly illegally owned. They are not going to turn them in. They will keep them and will be emboldened by the prospect of all those defenseless potential victims out there. We will be at their mercy. In short, we will live in an even more dangerous country. How do I know this? Where is the academic study to support me? What is my source for this idea?
Common Sense.com.
We are what we are- a country with a long frontier past and use of guns. There are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms of varying sorts in our country. We have a large criminal population. There are no simple answers.
We could start by enforcing the laws we have. We could drastically increase the penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime instead of using it as a plea bargaining chip. Sentences for using a gun in commission of a crime should become draconian.
We also need to realize this is largely a mental health issue. We could consider increasing the powers of the state to intervene and commit mentally unstable people. We could consider increasing the power of the state to intervene when disturbing social media messages indicate someone is at risk of exploding. I say this as one who is against increasing governmental powers. Yet, there is a difference between an oppressive government that gives itself unlimited powers for purposes of simply maintaining its power and powers used to save innocent lives.
These are just thoughts not concrete proposals because, like you, I don't have the answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The Untied States Secret Service has an answer to preventing targeted shootings at schools. They developed a "Guide to Threat Assessment in the Schools" (access the Guide at the USSS National Threat Assessment Center) The Guide was designed to identify threats from students who pose a threat of targeted violence in schools. The Guide presents questions of mental health, access to weapons, talk of targeted violence, planning, sharing plans of targeted violence, lose of loved ones, being a loner and difficulty with relations with others. Sound familiar? This tragedy could have been prevented if the shooter was assessed, but it appears that the FBI dropped the ball.
Squid
To begin, its worth noting that congress cannot repeal the Second Amendment. That would require two thirds of each house of congress AND approval by majority vote in three fourths of the state legislatures. That may seem like a high hurdle to those who want action now, but, what makes a constitution something more than a statute is that it takes an overwhelming agreement to amend it.
Otherwise, Gary's suggestions are quite reasonable. A couple of things were dropped when, (a) most asylums were closed, and (b) the Americans with Disabilities Act was adopted. First, there are significant differences between physical and cognitive disabilities. Its easy to talk about facilitating independent living for people with intact minds and severe physical disabilities, but people with cognitive disabilities are, to some degree or other, not competent to make independent decisions for themselves. The degree varies widely, from people who can keep their own house and make their own meals but need someone to keep an eye on their finances, or every shyster in the world will be draining their bank account, to, people who really just want to sit in the corner in the sunshine and sleep all day, then go to bed at night time.
So, somewhere in there are people who really need to be kept in some degree of secured supervision, for their own safety and that of others. There should be plenty of safeguards, opportunities to appeal, judicial review, a rebuttable presumption that if you are capable of addressing the court and raising objections you are competent until proven otherwise. But some people just need to be in a safe, supervised setting, and no, it should not be just like a prison.
And no, we're not going to have perfect results controlling access to guns, but the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, does not absolutely rule out reasonable time, place and manner regulations. In the case of firearms, the denser the population, the more reasonable the restrictions on time, place and manner, but not necessarily ownership and possession.
This may not be relevant to Cruz, but there was an activist named Mitch Daniels if I recall, who lobbied for mentally ill people to be released from asylums. The courts ruled in his favor and thousands of people were let out. Sadly, there weren't too many family members waiting to take them in and care for them. Hence we have our homeless problem.
Post a Comment