Are we
having a conversation?
I’ve never seen anything like it. Since the election November 6th,
2012. We have a whole country of people,
most of whom have an opinion.
Many are talking, but who’s listening?
There was a terrible shoot-out in Newtown , Connecticut ,
and 20 children and seven adults were killed.
Right away, people started talking about gun control.
Others, fearing that the “gun control nuts” would prevail,
went out and bought guns.
The sides began to take shape. The people who zealously defend their right
to bear arms dug in their heels, and did everything to deflect any suggestions
of “gun control”.
The people who feel that the first action after one of these
mass shootings should be to control guns went on the offensive.
Commentators big and little, left and right, Liberal and
Conservative, NRA and anti-NRA, all had a solution, and were quick to pronounce
non-solutions by the opposition.
People who live in quiet, comfortable towns, like here in
Rockport, and presumably in Newtown ,
CT , were inclined to see the
solution as banning the ownership and sale of guns. Especially automatic rifles and large
magazines.
People who live on farms, or in little towns in Texas and Wyoming ,
who have lived with guns all their lives, see this as yet another attempt by
the Liberals to stamp out a basic freedom.
People who live in the inner city, where gangs frequently
attack one another, and people often die from gun shots, perhaps see this whole
discussion as so much noise about nothing.
NRA people continue to tell us that it’s not the guns, but
the people.
Gun control advocates are sure that if we can ban all
weapons, the problem will lessen.
NRA people reply that when all guns are outlawed, only the
outlaws will have guns.
NRA people dig in their heels, and refuse to concede even
the slightest hint of limiting the right of Americans to buy, sell, keep and
use firearms. They suspect, and perhaps
with good reason, that the opposition would gladly take away the right of all
Americans to bear arms.
Surely, there are those who see no reason for anyone to have a firearm.
The NRA people correctly called attention to the point that
events like Newtown, and Aurora, Tucson,
Virginia Tech and Columbine are all carried out by people who are somewhat
deranged.
All or nothing. Who
is having a conversation? Who is
listening?
In terms of finding a way to lessen the possibility of yet
another mass shooting in a school, or a movie theatre, or at a mall, shouldn’t
we be talking about trying to reduce ALL of the contributing factors?
What if we did a much better job of identifying people who
demonstrate certain characteristics of mental illness? In our digitally-connected world today, we
busily collect all manner of data.
Shouldn’t there be some way of creating a data base of people who have
demonstrated mental illness?
In that same digitally-connected world, we can enter the VIN
number of any automobile and find out where it is, where it was last sold, and
if it were ever involved in an accident.
Why shouldn’t we be able to track any firearm from
manufacturer to dealer to owner?
And for collectors, or anyone who has more than a few
firearms in his possession, shouldn’t that be something that local law
enforcement knows about?
Why shouldn’t it be possible to create a system whereby any
prospective gun owner must submit a nationally recorded application? And, if that applicant has a criminal record
or a report of mental illness, shouldn’t he be singled out for individual
handling?
In most small towns, and perhaps even in large cities, the
police have a list of the bad eggs. They
know the guys (and perhaps some gals) who continually run afoul of the
law. Drugs. Firearms.
Domestic abuse. Petty theft.
These people deserve protection from unlawful search and seizure, and
all the other constitutional protections, but still these people should be on a
data base, so that when they try to acquire a firearm, signals go off.
I realize that in creating such intersecting data bases, we
would be heading into a diabolical world where Big Brother knows everything
about everyone. But whether we like it
or not, we are already there. It’s just
that Big Brother knows a lot, but is missing some things that could serve to
protect the public.
How do we maintain the individual protections to keep each
of us free from being hauled in for questioning and imprisonment without due
process of the law? How do we continue
to protect the innocent, when we know so much about everyone?
And, while we know so much about everyone, shouldn’t we be
able to know those additional bits which may prevent the next guy with a
history of mental illness getting his hands upon an arsenal of weapons,
including high-capacity guns and magazines?
It’s time for us to examine our constitutional protections,
and think about them in the light of providing the right of each of us, even
little children, to that most basic right—to life.
The Personal
Navigator.
Noah Pozner, d. Dec. 14, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment