Let me
warn you: I own guns. I love to shoot. And I’m a strong supporter of the Second
Amendment. This may seem hypocritical coming
from a doctor, but don’t shoot me—figuratively speaking of course—before I make
my case. Any mass killing is a
horrifying event. Any senseless death is
riveting. Obviously, this goes without
saying, but as a doctor whose purpose is to save lives, this hits home more
painfully so. Amidst our grief and
outrage as a society, we desperately search for a preventative remedy, often setting
aside individual responsibility and shifting the blame to a more universal
source.
So then,
who or what are the causes of such violence so that we may find a cure? To some the issue is singular and clear: It’s the availability of guns, the NRA and pro-gun
advocates who allowed this to happen. To
others, it’s a mental health issue.
Still to others the issue is muddier: Is it a result of a society that glorifies
violence in its mass media, a decline in our spiritual and moral fiber, or the
frequency and duration by which the news media reports acts of violence and
aberrant behavior? Or perhaps it’s a combination of any or all of the above.
Gun
violence in America may very well be a multifactorial problem.
The way
information and entertainment is propagated these days might play several roles. On the one hand, entertainment media wantonly
glorifies violence, such that with the passage of time we become desensitized
to things that would have shocked us only a few years ago. On the other hand, the news media bombards us
with continuous coverage of real-life violence, making it seem more prevalent
than what the statistics may show. Then
there is social media where anyone can spout malignant ideas. One wonders whether such media saturation, in
its various forms, is the tipping point that sparks someone already of an
improper mindset into a murderous rampage.
But all
of this falls under the protection of the First Amendment and, for the most
part, rightly so. As with all our
rights, there are associated risks; it’s the price we pay for freedom. The risk of freedom of speech is the risk of
speech inciting hate and violence. Yet
most of us would dare not curb our First Amendment rights and exercise
censorship. And so the blame shifts to
some other source, such as the NRA, law-abiding gun owners and the Second
Amendment.
However,
removing the means by which a person can harm others will not eliminate the
threat. The Oklahoma City Bomber used
fertilizer to create a bomb killing 168 people.
The 911 terrorists used box-cutters to hijack four planes, killing
thousands. Then there were the Boston
Marathon bombers and the recent package bombings in Austin, Texas done with
make-shift devices. Gang-related
violence is all too common in our urban areas where in many instances, firearms
are obtained illegally. Sadly, where
there is a will, there is a way. Mental
illness may be a factor, yet in some cases it may simply be evil-minded people
who became that way for reasons we may never know.
The
Second Amendment gives teeth to our Bill of Rights; it provides the means by
which ordinary citizens can protect their unalienable rights, rights given to
us not by government, but by a higher power.
Our founding fathers believed this power to be God, but whatever the
source may be, the overarching idea is that man or government is not the source
of our freedoms, and therefore neither man nor government can take them
away. But to enforce this idea, there
must be a way for ordinary people to defend it.
But the
risk of the Second Amendment is that innocent citizens can be killed by the
very means in which they are enabled to protect themselves. Yet peaceful coexistence with firearms in the
public sphere is possible. Case in
point: Switzerland
has one of the lowest murder rates in the world (and less than strict
gun-controlled nations such as the United Kingdom and Australia) and the 3rd
highest per capita gun ownership.
The gun
debate has always been a hot and divisive topic, vehemently stirring passions
on both sides. How then do we protect
ourselves from violence, without creating a crusade to restrict or potentially
annihilate a constitutional right? How
do we do this without vilifying one set of beliefs over another, without creating
more resentment and hate, and increasing the divide?
Let’s
face it: we’ve been killing one another since the dawn of recorded
history. The darkness of the human heart
has existed since Cain and Abel, well before the advent of firearms. Formulating policy that severely restricts or
eliminates any of our constitutional rights will not keep us safer but weakens
us as a whole.
As a civilized
society we must work together to combat this problem without demonizing
another’s beliefs or treading on another’s rights. Each and every one of us is part of a larger entity—not
only as a nation but as a collective fabric of the entire human race. We must remember with any right comes responsibility,
and yet we also have a responsibility to one another. We must demonstrate our lawfulness and
maturity and our sense of right and wrong before we are able to handle and own a
gun. We must find a way to identify and help
those with
mental health issues before they cause harm without restricting their liberty. We must be careful in the way we display
violence through mass media without undue censorship. To every person we must bring to light the very
real and painful costs of violence. The remedy may very well require
a multifaceted, balanced approach.
©Randall S. Fong, M.D.
Comments
Post a Comment