Single shot, breech loading circa 1800 |
Once
again. A young man with a grudge and guns. Ten students dead this time. Second
Amendment? Just because it was set in place in the aftermath of the
Revolutionary War doesn't mean that it is set in stone, nor can its fundamental
ideology be questioned. In the light of the fact that people without proper
training or experience can acquire not just a hunting rifle but in certain
states a semiautomatic assault rifle more usually seen on the battlefield, and
remembering that when the Amendment was written, all that was available was a
single shot, breech loading device that could, in very experienced hands, fire
between three and four rounds a minute, it is time for a review, gun lobby or
not since the Amendment as written is no longer fit for purpose.
It would be counterintuitive – as well as anti-historical
– to believe that the landowning aristocracy like Madison and Washington wanted
to arm the population so that a crowd of malcontents could resist the
constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers of the Constitution
wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – so uprisings, whether
economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be dealt with by
a locally raised militia. They were the local Government agents, guarantors of
economic tranquility and were never given a mandate for wanton destruction,
neither was such ever envisaged as a possibility at the time.
What about other places? People carry in Israel, for example.
The primary difference is that most Israelis are weapons-trained, having served
in the IDF, and many Americans are not; no proof of competence seems to be
required. In Israel, getting a license is gruelling and can often involve
months of security vetting, weapons licensing checks, serial number matching,
condition of the weapon, range certification, plus a barrage of awareness-raising
information to be given verbally to the prospective owner – “When can I shoot
in self-defence?” “You had better be certain that you had no other recourse,
that you did what you could to warn the attacker, and that had you not taken
action, at least one innocent life could have been lost. And you may still
expect to do jail time.” A fair disincentive for shooting someone in a fit of
pique. Soldiers with weapons and private citizens who openly carry are
everywhere in Jerusalem but it is hardly surprising that unprovoked discharge
of a firearm is almost unheard of.
It should be made much more difficult - in the US and elsewhere
- for a civilian, especially without proper training, to acquire and keep any
kind of weapon. We have an old hunting rifle, which I don't use because I am
not licensed to do so and if I wanted to buy a gun here in France, I'd have to
pass a written and practical test then join a gun club and/or buy a safe and
finally buy the annual license. I would not be allowed to carry it on the
streets under any circumstances on penalty of extreme prosecution.
The statistics are overwhelming. I wonder which of Washington’s
successors will have the courage to do the right thing.
* I sing of arms and the man.. Virgil: Aeneid
Enjoyed reading your thoughts on gun law.
ReplyDeleteB