Gun Violence — American Exceptionalism or American Paranoia?
It is not fear of loss of freedom & privacy that preserves the anachronistic Second Amendment in its pure & original form, it is the outright paranoia of its uncompromising ardent supporters.
I have written about how the “slippery slope” argument is undermining American Exceptionalism elsewhere (https://medium.com/@mchellas). Nowhere is the “slippery slope” argument more insidious than in the arena of instituting sensible & prudent gun safety laws.
Every country has its share of mentally ill or disturbed people, but only in America they carry guns.
While mass shootings are statistically still a rarity, one life lost to this senseless tragedy is one too many & one life saved is worthy of a try.
What is the reason there is no traction on durable & common sensed approach to thwart gun violence?
Perhaps, Americans are the most paranoid people in the world.
The very system of democracy that the U.S. touts as a role model for the rest of the developing world and other fledgling democracies is not trusted by her own citizenry. We elect our President, our Representatives, and our Senators. Our founders built in co-equal branches to create the checks and balances from excesses. Despite these features, we are extremely paranoid of the powers of the government.
Far from the collectivistic and collaborative citizenry of many other developed countries, the U.S. stands alone in its disdain for its government & specifically for the power of the Government.
The counterbalance to an all too powerful Government with its massive Military & its potent Police, and its potential for ruthlessly subjugating its citizenry is for the right of each American to arm themselves to the hilt. Really?
Again, the ardent die-hard supporters of the Second Amendment will throw out various canards — if the citizenry was armed to the hilt, then Hitler & the Holocaust would not have happened, or Stalin and his police state would not have subjugated millions of Russians to the horrors of the gulag. Really?
A comparison to the automobile is instructive.
A car does not kill and neither does a gun. It’s the operator of that object that kills. Let’s be clear there is a comparison to be had here just to prove that it’s not so much freedom and privacy as much as paranoia that creates a divergence in the safety initiatives, rules & regulations for autos vs. guns.
Lest I be ridiculed for an unreasonable comparison, let me quickly level with the audience. Yes, for sure there are many more opportunities and hence deaths attributed to auto accidents than to random gun violence. Yet, this comparison is useful in the following arguments:
1. Sensible safety measures and rigorous enforcement of new traffic laws have resulted in a dramatic decline in death from 1979 to 2005 — both the number of deaths and the per capita deaths decreased by 15% and 35% respectively.
2. Fatalities for every 100 million miles driven has come down from 5.2 in 1960 to 1.1 in 2019. An astounding 4+ fold decrease.
3. In contrast, mass shootings, suicide by gun and murder-suicide have all increased over the last few years. Data is hard to come by but from 2016 to 2022, gun suicide has gone up over 20%, mass shootings have gone up over 50% and murder-suicides have gone up slightly.
Why is this?
There is freedom and privacy involved in qualifying to drive and obeying laws and in suffering the consequences of breaking the law.
Nobody puts out a temper tantrum or if they do, there is not a strong lobby against random sobriety tests which is a deep invasion of privacy. Licenses must be obtained and renewed, and vision tested.
In other words, some individual freedoms & privacies are curtailed in the name of the greater good to society at large.
So, why is the case with guns so different?
It’s not about freedom or privacy at all right? If it were then an equal outrage about the intrusions in auto safety and traffic law implementation should ensue.
No, it’s all about a sense of deep paranoia about the state. Sure, the right to own firearms as opposed to the right to drive an automobile was enshrined into the second amendment. Sure, I get that.
But it’s a deep sense of paranoia coupled with the dangerous “slippery slope” arguments that create a non-starter for any sensible, even slightly intrusive idea for gun safety.
It’s never about an unstable person, a mentally ill person wielding a gun. It’s always about mental illness and a need to help these folks. This is a red herring. Why can’t we preserve the 2nd amendment while still denying the right for unstable and mentally ill folks from handling guns?
When a drunk loses his or her driver’s license or has it suspended, do we say, “now what? they are going to come after us legitimate drivers”, “they are going to take all our cars away”?
Conclusion
The second amendment is an important right enshrined in the constitution & should be preserved. But could it not evolve with the times, advancement in technology & culture?
Apparently, the answer is a resounding NO! Not until we come to terms with our paranoia, are willing to compromise a bit of individual freedoms for the collectivistic benefits and are willing to shed the insidious “slippery slope” argument.
Subscribe if you want to receive an email when I publish
