Second Amendment

Reading yesterday's post, I guess it would be fair to ask how I feel about the second amendment to the US constitution. The answer is that I am deeply ambivalent in the etymological sense of the word -- I am pulled in different directions by powerful opposing ideas that I think both have validity. I do see the roles that guns play in preserving self-sufficiency and in resisting despotism -- and I think these are both good and necessary things. At the same time, it is clear that owning guns is associated with increased risk of suicide and of domestic violence homicide. It also seems clear that in urban areas where guns are readily available in a context of drug and/or gun violence, their presence fuels the escalation of even minor disputes into deadly events.

So, I don't want to eliminate the second amendment, nor am I happy with the status quo that leads to tens of thousands of easily preventable gun deaths annually.

In that context, it seems to me that the rhetoric -- the culture around guns in the US -- can be part of the problem. First off, it is just not the case that the left is lining up to take away everyone's guns. There's no reason to run out and buy more guns every time the topic of gun violence is raised. Arguably -- with more than one gun in the US for every man, women, or child -- we are somewhere close to saturation, so more guns for everyone does not seem like a pressing need. Even more, I worry more about the rhetoric of framing gun purchases in terms of left-versus-right political debate. It add fuels to a fire that I believe is corrosive to our democratic institutions.

Further, too rapid deployment of the self-defense argument concerns me. If you study most martial arts, you're taught about discipline and conflict resolution. Of course, gun safety training teaches a form of discipline. But my experience on gun ranges has often been one where conflict (again, particularly between the left and the right) has been celebrated. Certainly it is not always celebrated, but enough that I've felt afraid to say the wrong thing because open discussion is just not tolerated on some ranges. I think that the martial arts have it right -- with acquisition of means of force comes a responsibility to proactively manage situations that could lead to use of that force. "Stand your ground" is not always the right thing, and often there are inflection points we should notice and exploit long before face-to-face conflicts arise.

One more area concerns me: when we focus on guns too much; when we make them too available (especially in densely populated areas), I think there is a risk of creating a dynamic like "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In areas where gang and drug-related violence is pronounced, I think the ready availability of guns in the US and the linkage to macho ideas like "I'm not gonna let them push me around" leads to a place where guns become a primary means of conflict resolution.

I don't have an answer. Focus on mass shootings may well be a red herring -- as tragic as they are, they are a small percentage of annual gun fatalities by most measures I am aware of. As a corollary, focus on removing "military-style" guns (whatever that exactly means) is not likely to make a dramatic difference in annual gun fatalities, though it may reduce the glorification/drama factor. Securing guns from children, on the other hand, will almost certainly make a difference -- and while many gun owners do, there are also many who don't.

Like many things in the US, this is a place where actual dialog could help. It is fairly clear there are many needless gun deaths in the US every year. When manufacturers, lobbyists, political parties, and dogmatic partisans demonize one another, and stymie research and discussion around what changes might be reasonable or effective, that conflict costs lives.