 |
| National_Rifle_Association (Photo credit: ChrisWaldeck) |
Members of Congress cowed by the National Rifle
Association’s (NRA) lobbying power, and its extensive war chest, which it uses
unashamedly against legislators deemed ‘soft’ on gun control issues, continue
to do the association’s bidding. The ‘Gang of Fear’ came together recently to
defeat proposed legislation for enhanced background checks for gun purchasers.
As it does with all legislation designed to bring rationality to the purchase
and possession of firearms, the NRA’s knee-jerk reaction to the proposed law
was that it was a ‘first step to confiscation of our firearms.’
This argument seems to presuppose that there is,
somewhere in government, a group that sits in a room plotting to relieve ALL
Americans of ALL of their guns. Shudder! A truly scary thought; except that it’s
so far from the reality of how our chaotic, short-term focus bureaucratic and
political systems work, it’s laughable. Anyone who thinks the U.S. Government
does this kind of long term planning has only to look at our recent experiences
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, I digress. Let’s get back to background checks.
The intent of the legislation, as I understand it, was to establish procedures
that would go a long way to keep guns out of the hands of felons, the
emotionally or mentally disabled, etc.
News reports and surveys indicate that over 80% of the American public,
including a significant number of NRA members, supported the proposed law. One
has to wonder, then, why the leadership of NRA and the Gang of Fear so
adamantly opposed it. But, I’ll leave that for others or for another time.
Right now, I’d like to put another issue on the
table – one that I’ve not seen discussed – liability. Are those who block rules
that would curb access to guns by people who clearly should not be allowed to
have them liable for the harm such people cause? Now, I seriously doubt such an
argument would stand up in a court of law. After all, efforts to hold gun
manufacturers liable have gone nowhere, so a case like this is unlikely to ever
be brought. But, it does raise an interesting ethical and moral issue. Are you
morally and ethically responsible if your actions help create conditions that
inflict harm on others?
 |
| English: United States Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at her desk. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Would it have been useful to have enhanced
background checks that would have limited the ability of Virginia Tech student
Seung-Hui Cho, who had been previously diagnosed with a severe anxiety
disorder, from obtaining the weapons he used on April 16, 2007 to kill 32
people and wound 17 others on the school campus? Or Jared Loughner, a disturbed young man who
bought ammunition on the same day he attempted to kill U.S. Representative
Gabrielle Giffords during a constituent meeting in a supermarket parking lot in
Casas Adobes, Arizona, near Tucson. The January 8, 2011 shooting claimed the
lives of six people, including a nine-year-old girl.
 |
| Assassination attempt of U.S. President Gerald R. Ford by Sara Jane Moore. Location: San Francisco, CA. Description: Reaction of Secret Service agents, police, and bystanders approximately one second after Sara Jane Moore attempted to assassinate President Gerald R. Ford. 22 September 1975 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Going back further in time, would stiffer
backgrounds have made it more difficult for Lynette ‘Squeaky’ Fromme, a member
of the disciple of murderous cult leader Charles Manson, get her hands on the
.45 caliber automatic which she waved at former president Gerald Ford in
Sacramento in April 1975, or Sara Jane Moore, who shot at Ford 17 days later in
San Francisco? We might never know, because those opposed to rational controls
over gun ownership also try to block debate and discussion of the issue, hiding
behind the Second Amendment.
These are but a few of the incidents of clearly
disturbed individuals being able to acquire arms and ammunition under our current
regime of lax and haphazardly applied controls.
It’s not a Second Amendment issue. In my humble
opinion, it’s an issue of stepping up to the plate and assuming moral and
ethical responsibility for the violence that has become endemic in our society.
More than 80% of the American public gets it. When will the Gang of Fear?
No comments:
Post a Comment