Americans and their Love Affair with Guns

Cartoon: Denver Post

In Greek legend, the Gordian knot was the name given to an intricate knot used by the peasant Gordius to secure his oxcart. An oracle foretold that he who untied the knot would rule all of Asia. People tried to undo the knot but to no avail. This is the position in which President Obama finds himself on gun control. In a July interview with the BBC’s Jon Sopel, the President said:
“You mentioned the issue of guns. That is an area where …I feel that I've been most frustrated and most stymied. The fact is that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws, even in the face of repeated mass killings. And… if you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it's less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it's in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing.”

I am with the President on this one but who is creating the stumbling blocks? Is it a Process issue? Lobby groups such as the National Rifleman’s Association wield power way beyond their numbers. First, the NRA has its own PAC, enabling it to give unregulated funds to politicians. By funding numerous US Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, the lobbyists confound any legislation presented to Congress. In the 2012 election, more than 250 legislative hopefuls from both parties received NRA contributions.

Let us assume Congress wants to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of a semi-automatic rifle. I’ll call it the Comet 100. By altering the length of the stock and re-naming the rifle the Comet 101, the legislative ban is defeated. If an example is needed where Congress acts like an ostrich, when one of their number, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head in public at a shopping mall in Arizona, was there a groundswell in Congress to pass tighter gun laws? There was nothing. Fortunately she survived but her career as a legislator was over.

Perhaps the stumbling blocks are erected by the judiciary? On numerous occasions since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has ruled on the right of Americans to own weapons. The Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has been consistent, namely that American citizens have the right to “bear arms.” The Amendment states that citizen militia has such a right, yet the Supremes don’t interpret the Constitution to mean that the right is limited to members of the armed forces. How is a gun-toting gang member who lives in one of Chicago’s Projects a member of the militia? To change the law, either the Court has to do an about face or the executive and legislative branch need to change the Constitution, a tortuous process at the best of times and an almost certain vote loser. In my years of studying America’s way of life, I have not read one serious paper or editorial advocating a constitutional amendment.

I don’t regard the issue as one of either process or law. I believe it is set deep in American culture. Americans, black and white, rich and poor, Christians, Jews and Muslims, believe fervently in freedom. It follows that many Americans believe they have the right and freedom to defend themselves. If this means owning and using a firearm to preserve that freedom, that is their right. The cost of children’s lives, for example the 28 murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, is part of the price paid by Americans for their freedom. So is the recent loss of life in Ferguson.

Most Americans I speak with are amazed to discover that a British citizen has the right to own a firearm and to keep it at home. It requires a Police license and weapons must be secured under lock and key. However, I have no absolute right to use a firearm to kill or wound anyone, even an attacker. There is a legal principle that British citizens must not take the law into their own hands and in defending themselves, they must use only such force as is reasonably necessary. This may well be the case both federally and in some US states but the all too frequent American-style killings make me believe it is not.

Rather than just criticise, may I offer a partial solution? If sales of bullets were regulated so that any sales would be registered, it might be possible to trace some gun ownership from a bullets used to kill or wound. If nothing else, this may act as a deterrent to indiscriminate use of guns, although the black market in bullets would probably be significant.

So, Mr Obama, if you are really serious about changing gun-safety laws, you will have to do better than wring your hands. Take the issue to the American people, get on the stump and persuade Americans that their freedoms will not be reduced or harmed by reconsidering gun ownership. Will the President follow this advice? I doubt it. I accept this is a complex issue. I also accept it is a vote loser in many states but as the President will not be standing for election again, what personal damage arises?