Why is this so tough? You do not solve disputes between contesting ideas by shooting people. You can argue this point (what would have happened if Hitler or Churchill were assassinated), but the reality is that the “great man” view of history is rarely applicable to individual killings. It is also a sin and criminal to kill people in peacetime, so the act itself is both religiously and politically condemned.
Since humans are a failed species in many ways, it is not surprising that a small portion of us are willing to commit grievous acts for certain principles. I am not talking about defending a loved one or yourself from immediate harm; I am talking about illegal killings for ideological reasons or for purely economic advantage.
No matter how much any of us hates someone or some idea, left or right, few of us as a percentage of our national population would kill another human solely for that reason. This has been borne out over history, and I submit the basis for this general human conduct is the prohibition by law, religions, and societies. It is probably innate, and, for some, also learned from the Old Testament.
We are governed by societal and religious norms, enacted into laws and inculcated into our psyches from our parents and the communities in which we live. Even though slaves were considered chattel, it was still a crime in the Roman Empire and in most slave-owning jurisdictions to arbitrarily murder them. This may have been based on purely economic reasons rather than love or respect, but if nothing else, humans are practical. This is also one of the bases for most religious and legal bans on murder. The golden rule works, I do not want someone to have the right to end my life, so I agree not to end theirs.
I believe that most of us cannot imagine personally killing someone. This is an argument for one of the saving graces of our species, and we do not have many redeeming qualities. We exploit humans worldwide, destroy the planet, kowtow to the rich and powerful, and dismiss the needs of the poorest of us, yet, personally, we honor human life as we turn our thoughts away from the problems we have created.
Truly, as the Bible says, we do nothing unless our ox is gored. Our lives are busy and involved in the daily needs of family and making a living, but even though tens of thousands of our family members are killed every year most of us are not directly affected. Sadly, the gun violence that has decimated those families can affect any of us or our children in our schools and neighborhoods at any time. The Sandy Hook School parents could not imagine when they saw their kids off to school that awful day that they would never see them again.
Based on the above polemical thoughts, there is no reason to believe we cannot come together in this nation to do the right thing and try, and succeed, in regulating guns and reducing this plague. In 2023, 46,728 Americans were killed by firearms (both homicides and suicides). Guns are the number one cause of death for children aged 17 and younger—and have been for four years. We are killing our children and do not seem to care about it.
If nothing else, I think we all can agree that to not try to stop the slaughter would be reprehensible, especially when a substantial percentage of us believe in some kind of regulation on firearms. I wrote a column recently acknowledging that gun deaths will never stop because of the Second Amendment and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, but I do not say that we should not try to work within those strictures to limit the accessibility of weapons and reduce the yearly toll of murders.
When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia broadened the use of the right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he also stated that the right is not absolute and does not permit the possession of “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” He noted the nation’s history of gun regulation and opined that the regulation of the commercial sale of arms, prohibitions on concealed weapons, limiting possession by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying in certain locations, and bans on certain types of weapons could be presumptively constitutional. In other words, those types of statutes could be presumed to be legal, when passed.
I believe that this issue could well have bipartisan support on both ends of the political spectrum. I refuse to believe that anyone is so callous to not try to come to agreement within the guidelines outlined in Heller. Perhaps the recent or past assassinations and the approximately 50 school shootings every year will finally focus the national attention on trying to toughen the implementation of current laws for both ownership and use and will incentivize the states and Congress to pass rigorous new statutes where appropriate.
I have given up on the idea of changing the national preoccupation of conservatives and others who want to be able to be armed to the teeth. I understand that many worry about our governments removing their guns, but I cannot believe that their supposed belief about being able to successfully take up arms against a dictatorial state is realistic.
Concerns about personal safety are certainly real for many. I am not suggesting that this concern is misplaced; I am only proposing that we comply with the current status of the law and only implement new statutes that are constitutionally sound. We can do this by passing common-sense bipartisan legislation that will ensure that gun owners are responsible individuals, which will make us all safer.
We are an armed state, with an estimated 393 million guns—120 guns for every 100 Americans. We bury 50,000 loved ones annually (often our children) because of them. Our sons and daughters attend school with a sense of dread. Many of us live in communities where gun shots are a regular background noise. This is not how we should be living, nor should we have to. Basta!
