It's been a year since I've posted. Many different reasons but mostly laziness and an overabundance of procrastination. I might go back in time, blog-wise, and post a few travel/foodie reviews from last year, but today, after internalizing the tragic news of Sandy Hook Elementary's massacre, I have a profound need to put something down in writing.
But before I go any further I want to note that I feel horror for, and great empathy with, the families of the victims and the children who are left behind to deal with this traumatic experience. My thoughts, as a father, are with those, who, today, can but feel outrage and unbound-able grief for their losses. Losses of life, of innocence, of trust...
I would not describe myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I admit I lean away from teaching Creationism as absolute truth in public schools. I'm generally against tax loops for the wealthy, and I can't understand the reasons for banning gay marriage. Well, maybe that puts me in there with the slightly-wounded-heart liberals, I don't know. I also prefer smaller government, and proactive means to limiting a welfare state. And finally, I support a sensible approach to budgets everywhere - don't go over all the time or it'll come back to bite you! I'm registered to vote as an independent, though I did support Hillary Clinton's run for president in 2008, and I won't apologize for supporting a centrist politician willing to work in a bipartisan way as long as the right things get done. I didn't vote for either of the main candidates this year, but I did vote!
OK, so with that out of the way now, let's talk guns.
I live in Singapore and I can't help but feel a major sense of relief for my children's safety today, and, at the same time, a great wave of anxiety for that of the children of my friends and relatives back in the States. It has been over 13 years now since the Columbine shooting and nothing has really changed in the landscape of gun politics. How is that possible, you might ask? Not only that, but it appears that in the same time period when these shooting sprees have increased in their rate of occurrence, support for stricter gun control has waned. So how, then, can a sane parent send their kids to school, or daycare, when both government and the majority of citizens are all in agreement that the status quo of killings is palatable, evidenced by the simple fact that there have been few if any laws or acts of enforcement put in place to stop them?
Well, that's not hard. We put trust in lots of things that don't appear rational from afar. Driving our kids to school, for instance, which is by far more dangerous than gunmen in terms of statistics. So yeah, Americans can all continue about their lives and know that by and large they live in a country that is safe for themselves and their children. Thank goodness. But does that mean we should tolerate these mass killings of the innocent? Should we sit idle and watch tragedies unfold year after year? There are times when one can feel compelled to act. Especially after a tragedy like this while the wounds are open and the emotions are high. Just as described in Klein's Shock Doctrine and Duhigg's Power of Habit, crises can be exploited to bring about serious change, if not always for the best.
Those who support the protection of gun ownership rights also lay claim to car accidents being responsible for more deaths than guns. They then make the sarcastic conjecture that cars should be outlawed, to make a point. Should the use of cars as weapons in schools become a new trend, I would start to think seriously about that, but until then I worry about guns. A gun's main use is as a weapon. In fact, and maybe surprisingly to some, guns are weapons by definition. Cars are not. Same argument can be applied to kitchen knives, airplanes, and hot, molten lava.
Then there is the argument that if it wasn't a gun it would have been a bomb, throwing knives, or a bow and arrows - the last a reference to the chilling and poignant film, We Need To Talk About Kevin. Well, bomb ownership should be banned too. Oh, wait, it is. Not predicting a big fight looming on that front. And if toxophilite-driven massacres become the new trend, we can indeed ban archery. Or should we? This comes to the heart of the problem and the rational debate we can have on this issue. What is the correct balance between the protection of civilian rights to self-defense and recreation, and the sensible control of violence?
I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I feel that with school violence and desensitization to it on the rise, there should be a measured increase to enforcement and control of the instruments most likely to be used in such crimes - firearms. When I started looking at statutes on the book for this I again realized that the largely symbolic and ineffective ban on assault rifles that was signed into law in 1994 had already expired in 2004. A sad fact I keep forgetting.
And there are already laws in place for gun control in school areas, but they are not being enforced, largely because they are unrealistic. We shouldn't let our government hide behind such laws. If such laws cannot be enforced then we should either be collecting more tax revenues, ideally from gun owners, in order to implement them, or we should repeal them in favor of other, better ones. While I detest the idea of metal detectors, why aren't they installed in every school, daycare, kindergarten and crèche yet? Why isn't every child care and learning institution obliged by law to provide armed security services to its staff and students?
The final issue of the right of individuals for self-defense against persons or tyrannical governments seems intractable. But I ask gun owners or advocates of second amendment protections: if the solution to self-defense is to arm oneself, isn't the logical conclusion of that argument that we should be putting a loaded gun in every child's backpack alongside their lunchbox and books? (BTW, this is the same kind of hyperbole/sarcasm you might use with the car ban argument).
I, for one, prefer Singapore's sensible approach to this issue. If you can prove you are in imminent danger (say, tracked down by a gang) you can get a self-defense permit for a concealed weapon. Since no one else has a gun you don't have to worry about this %99.99999 of the time. Violent crime here is almost non-existent due to strong deterrence measures. If you want to own a gun for recreation you can get a license but you must keep the gun locked at a firing range. A similar rule could be applied to hunting grounds. It's so simple it just might work in the States, too.
Until then, I am thankful I don't have to send my kids to school in the U.S., and I keep my fingers crossed for all my friends and family back home.
But before I go any further I want to note that I feel horror for, and great empathy with, the families of the victims and the children who are left behind to deal with this traumatic experience. My thoughts, as a father, are with those, who, today, can but feel outrage and unbound-able grief for their losses. Losses of life, of innocence, of trust...
I would not describe myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I admit I lean away from teaching Creationism as absolute truth in public schools. I'm generally against tax loops for the wealthy, and I can't understand the reasons for banning gay marriage. Well, maybe that puts me in there with the slightly-wounded-heart liberals, I don't know. I also prefer smaller government, and proactive means to limiting a welfare state. And finally, I support a sensible approach to budgets everywhere - don't go over all the time or it'll come back to bite you! I'm registered to vote as an independent, though I did support Hillary Clinton's run for president in 2008, and I won't apologize for supporting a centrist politician willing to work in a bipartisan way as long as the right things get done. I didn't vote for either of the main candidates this year, but I did vote!
OK, so with that out of the way now, let's talk guns.
I live in Singapore and I can't help but feel a major sense of relief for my children's safety today, and, at the same time, a great wave of anxiety for that of the children of my friends and relatives back in the States. It has been over 13 years now since the Columbine shooting and nothing has really changed in the landscape of gun politics. How is that possible, you might ask? Not only that, but it appears that in the same time period when these shooting sprees have increased in their rate of occurrence, support for stricter gun control has waned. So how, then, can a sane parent send their kids to school, or daycare, when both government and the majority of citizens are all in agreement that the status quo of killings is palatable, evidenced by the simple fact that there have been few if any laws or acts of enforcement put in place to stop them?
Well, that's not hard. We put trust in lots of things that don't appear rational from afar. Driving our kids to school, for instance, which is by far more dangerous than gunmen in terms of statistics. So yeah, Americans can all continue about their lives and know that by and large they live in a country that is safe for themselves and their children. Thank goodness. But does that mean we should tolerate these mass killings of the innocent? Should we sit idle and watch tragedies unfold year after year? There are times when one can feel compelled to act. Especially after a tragedy like this while the wounds are open and the emotions are high. Just as described in Klein's Shock Doctrine and Duhigg's Power of Habit, crises can be exploited to bring about serious change, if not always for the best.
Those who support the protection of gun ownership rights also lay claim to car accidents being responsible for more deaths than guns. They then make the sarcastic conjecture that cars should be outlawed, to make a point. Should the use of cars as weapons in schools become a new trend, I would start to think seriously about that, but until then I worry about guns. A gun's main use is as a weapon. In fact, and maybe surprisingly to some, guns are weapons by definition. Cars are not. Same argument can be applied to kitchen knives, airplanes, and hot, molten lava.
Then there is the argument that if it wasn't a gun it would have been a bomb, throwing knives, or a bow and arrows - the last a reference to the chilling and poignant film, We Need To Talk About Kevin. Well, bomb ownership should be banned too. Oh, wait, it is. Not predicting a big fight looming on that front. And if toxophilite-driven massacres become the new trend, we can indeed ban archery. Or should we? This comes to the heart of the problem and the rational debate we can have on this issue. What is the correct balance between the protection of civilian rights to self-defense and recreation, and the sensible control of violence?
I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I feel that with school violence and desensitization to it on the rise, there should be a measured increase to enforcement and control of the instruments most likely to be used in such crimes - firearms. When I started looking at statutes on the book for this I again realized that the largely symbolic and ineffective ban on assault rifles that was signed into law in 1994 had already expired in 2004. A sad fact I keep forgetting.
And there are already laws in place for gun control in school areas, but they are not being enforced, largely because they are unrealistic. We shouldn't let our government hide behind such laws. If such laws cannot be enforced then we should either be collecting more tax revenues, ideally from gun owners, in order to implement them, or we should repeal them in favor of other, better ones. While I detest the idea of metal detectors, why aren't they installed in every school, daycare, kindergarten and crèche yet? Why isn't every child care and learning institution obliged by law to provide armed security services to its staff and students?
The final issue of the right of individuals for self-defense against persons or tyrannical governments seems intractable. But I ask gun owners or advocates of second amendment protections: if the solution to self-defense is to arm oneself, isn't the logical conclusion of that argument that we should be putting a loaded gun in every child's backpack alongside their lunchbox and books? (BTW, this is the same kind of hyperbole/sarcasm you might use with the car ban argument).
I, for one, prefer Singapore's sensible approach to this issue. If you can prove you are in imminent danger (say, tracked down by a gang) you can get a self-defense permit for a concealed weapon. Since no one else has a gun you don't have to worry about this %99.99999 of the time. Violent crime here is almost non-existent due to strong deterrence measures. If you want to own a gun for recreation you can get a license but you must keep the gun locked at a firing range. A similar rule could be applied to hunting grounds. It's so simple it just might work in the States, too.
Until then, I am thankful I don't have to send my kids to school in the U.S., and I keep my fingers crossed for all my friends and family back home.
No comments:
Post a Comment