On Friday December 14th, 2012, a 20 year old boy called Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother before driving her car to Sandy Hook Elementary School, taking with him his mother's legally registered .223 rifle, 9mm Glock and 9mm Sig Sauer, as well as a bullet proof vest. He thereafter proceeded to execute 6 teachers and 20 children, before killing himself. Sometimes terrible events happen which nobody could have foreseen or prevented. This is not one of those events. This is not the first mass shooting in the history of the USA. It's not even the first mass shooting this year. It's the seventh. the seventh!?!? The seventh mass shooting this year!!
The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the passage within the United States Constitution which forces the United States government to entitle its people with the right to own guns. Notice the specific mention of 'a well regulated militia', which seems to imply that the amendment exists to prevent an authoritarian government from being establish which has military dominance over its people. In 2008 the District of Columbia v. Heller case saw the US supreme court rule that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home", because the "Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part". We have a metaphor for people who follow a rule without considering its purpose; we call them sheep, we call them cattle.
There are two claims which are made to defend the right to bear arms in response to tragedies such as that of Sandy Hook:
1. The constitution protects the right to bear Arms
2. The person is at fault, not the weapon
The first claim is not one which is based on any moral or practical discussion about weapons, it's simply an assertion that law in the USA is (and ought to be) based on the constitution of the USA. Besides our religious convictions, where else do we assert, as a people, that a book or document's wording and content is perfect in every way, for all time, and never in need of further modification? Is there anyone who thinks that the author of the Bill of Rights was God, or was made, by some other means, perfect? Is there anyone who believes that James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, who initially rejected the idea considering it unnecessary, dangerous and impotent, however intelligent, however well intentioned, could have possibly predicted the state of his country more than 200 years into the future?
The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 in the wake of the American war of Independence. In such a time, surely it would seem eminently sensible to allow citizens to bear Arms to protect themselves from the possibility of an authoritarian government, or the invasion of another nation. Let us not forget that at this time the USA was a coalition of individual states comprised of very different people, also, and one might argue that the Second Amendment had concessionary value for individuals still suspicious of rival states (and the USA indeed suffered a civil war 50 years later).
In the light of these historical considerations, one cannot reasonably argue that the constitution of the United States of America is perfect and relevant for all time, no matter what the circumstances or how the environment changes. To do such would be to pretend that the document itself was not a product of its time and circumstances.
The second claim was made by James Jacobs, the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University; The BBC quoted him as saying "I think this is more of a mental health problem than a gun control problem". To my mind this entirely misses the point. The point is not who or what is at fault but what the outcome will be. Surely our first priority is fewer dead children? Of course Adam Lanza was at fault, and probably crazy too (who the hell takes a bullet proof vest to shoot up a school?); do we mean to imply by this that it was his evil, or crazy, intentions which expelled pieces of metal rapidly into the flesh of children? Let us take another nation by way of comparison. Japan has extremely tight gun control laws. In 2008 the annual rate of gun homicide was less than 1 per million in Japan. In the USA it was 30. More than 30 times number of murders using guns. Does anyone think the murderers are not at fault? no. Is there any doubt that this is the result of the availability of guns, and not the result of 'fewer crazy people'? Surely the answer must be no? Would Adam Lanza still have killed 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook if he didn't have access to his mother's legally owned guns? I'll let you figure it out.
