March 27, 2018
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
On the Gun Violence Debate: A Conversation with A Student Who
Supports New Gun Prohibitions
Friends,
Back
on February 22 of this year I offered a column that dealt with what happened—the
school shooting—in Parkland, Florida [http://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/2018/02/february-22-2018-my-corner-school.html], specifically
the ideological use being made of the event. Was it not Mayor Rahm Emmanuel of
Chicago, once of the Obama administration, who famously said: “You never want a
serious crisis go to waste”? And the inflated image of millions of innocent and
deeply fearful—and aggrieved—high school and middle school students “spontaneously”
organizing and marching on Washington and its assembled politicians this past
weekend, as well as doing the same thing in various larger cities across the
land, has all the appearances of a mass movement which will not stop until “victory
is achieved.”
But
what, pray tell, is that goal, that “victory” for these adolescents? “No more
guns!” thousands shout. “Ban semi-automatics and raise the age to possess guns
from 18 to 21!” others scream. But just how many of these students, most of
whom have undergone the bleaching and brainwashing effects of our public school
system for years, know exactly what they are protesting? How many have really
examined the issue of what now is called “gun violence”? How many truly
understand what our Constitution states on the right to possess firearms? How
many have any knowledge at all of what the courts, including the Supreme Court,
have declared in various cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment—indeed,
how many even know what the 2nd Amendment really says and means?
Just
recently I had a conversation with a good friend of one of my cousins, a freshman
at a nearby university here in North Carolina and a political science major (as
well as a graduate of one of the supposedly best public schools in the state).
Here
is how the conversation went (I quote from memory, but I think I have done both
of us justice):
ME:
“You support new laws to make most gun
possession illegal?”
STUDENT:
“Yes I do. Too many students have been
killed brutally by people with guns. It’s got to stop. We need to pass new laws
to take guns out of the hands of those persons.”
ME:
“But how would you do that?”
STUDENT:
“Well, I would make all semi-automatic
guns illegal and raise the age for possession of guns to 21. And I would make a
law that only people who use guns for hunting and special competitions should own
them. The government should monitor all guns and only permit ownership in certain
cases.”
Now,
lest you think such sentiments are rare, I would suggest that the views of my
cousin’s friend are reflective of a large portion of the students who gathered
in Washington this past weekend. And, further, I would suggest that this sort
of thinking reflects the miseducation—the anti-gun ideological indoctrination—that
exists in our public schools and which is in many ways driving this debate.
Continuing,
I asked:
ME:
“But what about the U.S. Constitution? What
about the 2nd Amendment that guarantees my ‘right to keep and bear
arms’ and which has been upheld by the courts? How can you justify taking the
right to keep and bear arms away from 18, 19, and 20 year olds, when, if they can
join the armed forces they do exactly that? And they can vote as full citizens
at age 18? Aren’t you infringing on their rights as citizens?”
STUDENT:
“Well, if that is what the Constitution
says, then it’s lived beyond its usefulness and should be junked or at least
changed. Look, student lives are at stake. We can’t let this go on, so, if we
need to abolish the Constitution, then we need to do it. It’s that simple—don’t
you see?”
Notice
the use of “if” here—as it is fairly obvious that this honor high school
graduate doesn’t know apparently what the Constitution says in the 2nd
Amendment, except that if it stands in the way of the latest political
movement, it should disappear or be radically changed.
I
responded to the student:
ME:
“Let me ask you something: Each year
thousands of cars driven by drivers between the ages of 16 and 21 run into and
kill hundreds, probably thousands of people. Teenage drivers, students your
age, are guilty of a disproportionate number of accidents and resulting deaths.
Would you advocate raising the driving age to 21 and banning those ‘suped up’ sports
cars that can really inflict mayhem in a collision?”
STUDENT:
“No; it’s different. We need our cars to
get around. You don’t need guns.”
ME:
“That’s not the point: your argument is
that more students are injured or killed by those aged between 18 and 21. My
analogy is that cars driven by those in the same age group do the same thing.
So, raise the age. Can’t you see that?
Additionally,
let me repeat: possessing guns is a guaranteed right we have under the
Constitution. We can own a car as property, but despite the fact that most
people eventually use them, there is no guaranteed right for us to acquire them.
You’re in school and live at home. You have car, but it is not absolutely
necessary for you to have one. You have no ‘right’ to have one. But I do have
the right under the Constitution, specifically, to keep and bear arms.”
At
this point, there was a brooding silence, and so I continued:
ME:
“Let me ask you another question, continuing
with this comparison. Would you say that the responsibility for the deaths of
those people killed by an automobile was with the automobile or with the car’s
driver?”
STUDENT
(rapidly responding): “The driver, sure.”
ME:
“Okay, then, is it not the responsibility
of the shooter who pulls the trigger in on-campus school violence and not the weapon
he uses? I mean, suppose he uses a kitchen knife, or perhaps a bow and arrow.
Should we ban them, too? Should we restrict them, say, as to age—no one under
21 can possess them? How many millions of folks have kitchen knives in their
homes? How many BATF agents will it take to knock on every door and ask: ‘Let
me see all your knives, and any bows and arrows you have.’ After all knives wound
more people each year than guns. Does that mean my grand-nephew’s bow and arrow set
he got last Christmas must be registered as a lethal weapon?”
At
this point, there was more silence. But I had more questions.
ME:
“Let me ask—what if in many schools you
have three or four specially trained personnel who had access to guns, administrators
who knew how to use guns safely. If this was the case and it was public knowledge, do you think those potential perpetrators would attempt the kinds of
shooting we’ve seen?”
STUDENT:
“Teachers don’t need and don’t want to be
armed! That’s ridiculous.”
ME:
“I’m not talking about all teachers or
all administrators, just some specially trained persons—they mostly would be in
administration—and that it would be publicly known. Don’t you think that might
cause some aggrieved students to think twice?”
STUDENT:
“Well, maybe…I suppose it might. I just
don’t like the idea of guns in school.”
And
I continued:
ME:
“You told me that some of your friends
had gone to Washington, and that you had high school friends who were
organizing, as well?”
STUDENT:
“Yeah, that’s right. I think they had
support from some of their teachers and school administrators, and there were some
churches involved, too.”
ME:
“What about the political angle?”
STUDENT:
“Well, I know that a lot of our movement
is aimed against the powerful NRA who control Congress. And also at Donald
Trump and the Republicans who are owned by the NRA.”
ME:
“But the NRA did not pull Nicholas Cruz’s
trigger; he did. The NRA in everything they do emphasizes gun safety and
responsible ownership, including courses in how to properly and safely use a
gun.”
STUDENT:
“Well, what about those students who go
off the deep end, who have mental problems?”
ME:
“Agreed. But that doesn’t implicate the
NRA or the right to gun ownership. That’s another whole issue, an issue that
reflects what is occurring in our society, and, let me add, what kind of
education and what kind of culture you and your friends are growing up in.
How many
zombie movies have you seen in the past couple of years? You like AMC’s series ‘The
Walking Dead’? How many thousands of persons in the series have their heads
bitten off, shot or killed? How many characters get killed off in the ‘X-Men' series that is so radically popular? I mean, it is so easy and facile to
understand how a young student—upset about something, maybe spurned in a
relationship-gone-bad, perhaps feeling isolated and in despair, watching how
Hollywood settles such things--might decide to pick up a gun, or perhaps a
knife or bow and arrow, and decide to avenge the perceived grievance, and at
the same time win a little fame and gain a little attention. Don’t you see
that? Don’t you see how this society, including your own schooling, may produce
this?”
At
this point, the conversation seemed to trail off. My student friend, who was on
spring break, had places to go, as had I. But as we parted he did say that he
would think about what I had said. And I thanked him for listening and
encouraged him to read more, and not just listen to other students and, yes, to
his teachers and professors...and various politicians with an anti-gun agenda.
Will
it do any good? Will he begin to think more deeply about the fundamental issues
of this debate? Will he come to understand that many like him are being used as
political battering rams by ideological forces which seek to undermine the 2nd
Amendment as part of a longer range effort to gain more control over the lives
and destinies of millions of American citizens?
To
those questions I don’t have an answer. But I wish him well and wish him
greater enlightenment, for the future of this nation rests upon the civic
responsibility and understanding of young men (and women) like him.
No comments:
Post a Comment