Stephen Kent
A recent column I wrote on the necessity for gun control in light of the Connecticut elementary school killings resulted, not unexpectedly, in sharp reaction.
One reader headlined his comment, “Off the Mark.”
He’s right. Perhaps the earlier column was off the mark by not adequately explaining the degree of sacrifice that must be undertaken to rid the country of death by firearms.
“I own a few guns for hunting, go to church and obey the law,” he wrote. “You lump me and many others like me as the problem.”
I can appreciate the strong feelings of responsible gun owners. However, this country has sacrificed in time of war, in time of terrorist attacks and other emergencies. What can be more of an emergency than the massacre of school children?
That was not at all the intention.
The ratio of law-abiding, churchgoing sportsmen to sociopath and criminal gun users must be in the neighborhood of 1 to 10,000.
He noted that there are many gun control laws, including restrictions on automatic weapons — the weapon of choice by the demented, deranged and criminal.
So the problem is that what exists is not effective.
Going deeper, firearms are but the instruments of the criminal, deranged and demented. As a society, we have gone beyond the point where these can be controlled by law. We are paying the price for turning deaf ears to warnings over past decades of the corrosive effect of a culture of violence sparked by entertainment and video games.
Society has let the climate of unlimited freedom produce an epidemic of violence. This is an infection that can be stopped, but it will take time. It will be many years before those so infected with the culture of death are gone from this earth.
The price to pay is sacrifice, giving up some individual freedoms for the good of all. It was done following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The ratio of terrorists to law-abiding airline passengers is even less than that of gun owners to bad guys. Yet society saw the danger extraordinarily quickly and agreed to submit to invasive and restrictive security in order to fly.
Many nations ban personal possession of firearms. Harvard University historian Jill Lepore wrote in “The Story of America” about the “civilizing process” that occurred in Europe but not America:
“By the time European states became democracies, the populace had accepted the authority of the state. But the American Revolution happened before Americans had got used to the idea of a state monopoly on force. Americans therefore preserved for themselves not only the right to bear arms — rather than yielding that right to a strong central government — but also medieval manners: impulsiveness, crudeness and fidelity to a culture of honor.
“We’re backward, in other words, because we became free before we learned how to control ourselves.”
I can appreciate the strong feelings of responsible gun owners. However, this country has sacrificed in time of war, in time of terrorist attacks and other emergencies. What can be more of an emergency than the massacre of school children?
The sacrifice of banning firearms is not an inconvenience. It would be a major lifestyle change, but one that citizens have been willing to take in the past.
There is the sacrifice of giving up candy for Lent and the sacrifice of dedicating one’s life to working in developing countries. Recivilizing our country will require the latter form of sacrifice.
President Barack Obama is said to be “determined to take action” against gun violence and considering a combination of executive actions and legislation. The president is expected to present many of them in his State of the Union address.
That speech must be on the mark to resound as one of the most clarion calls to action this nation has ever heard.
***
Kent is the retired editor of archdiocesan newspapers in Omaha and Seattle. He can be contacted at Considersk@gmail.com.
PREVIOUS: Like a Connecticut pastor, young people can be heroes for Christ
NEXT: Time to consider national service for young people
Automatic weapons have been banned in the United States since the 1930’s. A cogent argument requires having the correct facts. Automatic means you hold the trigger and fire bullets as long as the trigger is held down. Semi-automatic is when a single bullet is fired every time the trigger is pulled. These high profile mass murders occur overwhelmingly with the use of semi-automatic weapons.
I suppose that since most gun crimes in the United States involve handguns (not so-called “assault weapons”) then you most likely want to ban those as well. I don’t hear liberals up in arms over the number of people (including children) killed by guns in Chicago nearly every day.
Perhaps Mr. Kent should look up “Legitimate Defense” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church before condoning the shredding of the U.S. Constitution.
I completely agree with you. We are all in this together. Since most mass shootings involve the use of automatic weapons, these automatic weapons should be curtailed (either by a ban or a limitation on the number of bullets they can fire). Until such time that mass murderers use other types of killing mechanisms, they types they are currently using should be carefully regulated.
I should point out that hunters don’t need automatic rifles since they would NEVER kill an animal with an automatic weapon. Similarly, people protecting their homes and families would NEVER use an automatic rifle to confront an intruder (since the intruder may be an unsuspecting family member). So the only types of people who want automatic rifles are mass murderers and those who shoot these automatic rifles for fun. The latter group will have to give up some of their fun for the benefit of the entire society.