In His Opinion

Only Way To End the Killing Is To Outlaw All Guns Now

Paul Cummins
Mirror Contributing Writer

I am not optimistic that Congress will make any substantial changes in this country’s gun control laws, because most legislators are content to let the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun huggers call the shots—so to say—and sit by while America fortifies its position as the homicide capitol of the planet.
   Every now and then, and lately with increasing frequency, a mass murder takes place that temporarily disturbs our normally gun- indifferent-to-gun-loving society and it demands action. But most legislators know that the American public in general has the attention span of a fruit fly and employ a stall-and-delay strategy that allows them to do nothing substantive—which is their standard approach to most major issues.
   The rub comes when too many gun-assisted obscenities occur too close together and some members of Congress, fearful of losing votes, act. Note that they act to save votes, not lives.
   I suppose I sound cynical, but having watched guns proliferate in our streets all my life and seeing homicide rates grow and grow, as one Congress after another does little but repeat idiotic slogans, like “Guns don’t kill people, people do,” it’s hard to be anything but cynical.
   We get what we’re willing to get—spineless and visionless politicians, who do the minimum in fear of offending monied interests and do that only under pressure. Shortly after the tragedy at Littleton, Colorado, the California legislature passed the most ludicrous piece of legislation I have heard of in years. Citizens can now only buy one gun per month in California. Only 12 guns a year; goodness gracious, how will we manage?

Consider these facts:

1. In 1995, there were 77 homicides with guns in England, while there were 13,673 homicides with guns in America.
   110 people die from gun fire every day in America.
2. Between 1979 and 1991, as many children died from gunshots in America as American soldiers died in Vietnam.
3. For every attacker shot and killed in self-defense, 130 Americans are shot and killed by guns in other circumstances. 
4. 1:130. Is this safe? Is this sane?

What would I like our legislators to do? Since there isn’t even a remote possibility of my proposals being seriously considered, I may as well outline a plan for an ideal world, in order to imagine a safe, sane and peaceful civil society for a moment.

1. Only the police and the military shall possess guns.
2. Everyone else will turn in their guns at the nearest police station or National Guard post.
3. The government will buy these guns—at one price for the first six months and at a declining price for the next six months. 
4. Ammunition will be sold only to the military and the police.
5. People committing crimes with guns will be severely punished. In short, I propose the total elimination and abolition of guns. Is this so terribly radical? It was proposed seven years ago by Senator John Chaffee, Republican of Rhode Island. Whenever I outline my plan, two arguments inevitably emerge: first, it’s our constitutional right to carry guns; two, you’ll never get rid of all the guns out there.

   Of course, we won’t get rid of all the guns. There are 200 million guns now in circulation. But since their primary function is to kill living things, why manufacture more? The more guns there are on the street, the more people die. So let’s begin reducing the number of guns and maybe eventually we’ll get rid of them. But we’ll never get rid of them unless we begin.
   As to the constitutional question. The Framers died 200 years ago. They were concerned about British soldiers capturing American villages and intruding into people’s homes. They did not anticipate 14-year-olds slaughtering their classmates with automatic weapons.
   The second amendment says, “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.”
   I take this literally: it is the well-regulated militia which shall keep and bear arms, meaning the military and the police, not millions of gun-crazed individuals shooting each other and innocent victims and bystanders at an obscene rate. The second amendment speaks in terms of collective protection —“a well-regulated militia” and “the People”—not unregulated individuals bearing arms.
   Furthermore, common sense tells us that violent acts of passion and anger, as well as robberies and murders committed with guns will kill a lot more people than knives, clubs and fists. It’s simple: if there are fewer guns, fewer innocent people will die.
   As I said, I have little or no hope that our legislators will make any intelligent changes in gun laws. Safety locks and registration checks and including pawn shops in the customer check process may help a little but it’s clear that our elected officials will find ways to water down, write in loop holes, evade and obfuscate any serious legislation. The killing in our streets and homes will continue unabated.
   After all, guns and ammunition are big business and, as President Calvin Coolidge said, “The business of America is business.”