Editor's Note: The following piece was submitted to the Idaho State Journal by Leonard Hitchcock and appears here with his generous permission.
IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
According to the New York Times, on the day that a young
man in Connecticut shot twenty children at an elementary school with a gun, a
man in China assaulted twenty-two children at an elementary school with a
knife. All twenty of the
Connecticut victims died; none of the Chinese children did. These incidents underline both the
efficiency of firearms, and one reason why they constitute a substantially greater
danger to the public than knives.
Once could elaborate
on this lesson. In a violent
confrontation between two people, the chances of death resulting for one or
both of the parties is, in part, a function of the instruments of violence in
use. A gun is a more effective
inflictor of damage than a knife, which is, in turn, is more effective than
fists. A gun can also be utilized
more quickly, and at a distance.
If what prompts the
use of a weapon is sudden rage, a gun is therefore more likely to cause serious
harm than implements that are either less effective or that can only be brought
into use more slowly and at close range.
It is well known that rage ebbs sooner or later, and that the
continuation of violence, for humans and many other animals, is inhibited by
one of the combatants showing signs of injury and/or an unwillingness to
prolong the fight. Hence, “fighting
to the death” in cases of conflicts between animals of the same species (as
opposed to predator/prey interactions) is usually avoided. But if one of the combatants is able,
when at the height of anger (or fear), to quickly employ a lethal weapon that
is very efficient in inflicting mortal wounds, and to do so before the other is
able to exhibit submissive behavior (or an abatement of anger), the chances of
death are greatly increased.
And what if both
combatants have guns? I have not
found data pertinent to this situation, but my guess would be that under those
circumstances the probability of death increases, especially if one takes into
consideration the law’s propensity (as in, e.g., Florida) to regard preemptive
strikes as justifiable when there is a perceived threat of serious bodily harm.
(There are those who
hold the seemingly-paradoxical belief that if we were all armed with guns,
fewer of us would be killed by them.
This reasoning would suggest, by extension, that the world would be a
safer place if all nations, including Iran, possessed deployable nuclear
weapons.)
Of course the conflict
scenario considered above – something on the order of a bar fight -- is only
one of many circumstances in which lethal violence can occur. If causing death is someone’s conscious
plan, for example, then, while it is still the case that using a firearm to achieve
that aim is a more efficient means than most others, the assailant is less likely
to be inhibited by submissive behavior on the part of the victim.
Yet it seems obvious
that, no matter what the circumstances, public safety would be enhanced by
reducing the frequency with which violent confrontations involve the use of
guns. That would mean, among other
things, reducing the likelihood that people prone to engage in such
confrontations, i.e. those particularly subject to sudden rage or those who
suffer from mental conditions which foster the desire to kill others, would
possess firearms.
It will be objected,
no doubt, that citizens have a Constitutionally-protected right to possess such
firearms. To which the obvious
response is that no Constitutional right is absolute. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater or inciting a mob to
burn down a building are impermissible exercises of the right of free
speech. Generally speaking, when
the public’s welfare and wellbeing are seriously endangered by actions formally
classifiable as protected rights, then it is justifiable to deprive those
actions of protection. There
is no reason at all that gun ownership, whatever the Second Amendment might be
taken to mean, should not be subject to the same rule.
An incident such as
the Connecticut killings provides a further incentive – if one was needed – to
extend controls on gun ownership and use.
Guns designed for military use, such as the Bushmaster used by the
killer in Newtown, should not be available to civilians. Neither should large ammunition magazines
or clips. Guns of any kind should
not be sold to persons with criminal records or records suggesting a predilection
for violence, or to persons suffering from personality disorders likely to entail
violence. Background checks should
be required for all gun sales, not just those involving commercial dealers, and
information for such background checks should be collected from all relevant
sources.
Eli Wiesel, holocaust
survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner wrote in the New York Daily News on Dec. 17th,
“If this tragedy does not produce
universal gun control, what can and what will? What else do we need for preventing further horrors such as
this?”
If not now, when?
