"Guns don't kill people -- bullets do."
In 1968, that crack was the centerpiece of comedian Pat Paulsen's mock-presidential campaign. Today the line has new meaning in light of the gun drama surrounding Gilbert Arenas, the exiled point guard of the team formerly known as the Washington Bullets. This time around, nobody's laughing.
My own experience with Washington and bullets dates to the summer of 1974, when I worked in D.C. as an intern for Congressman Jerome Waldie, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Mostly, I summarized testimony to help prepare him for the Watergate hearings and the vote on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.
About a month into the program I accompanied another intern to Dulles Airport to meet a Haverford College classmate flying in from Iowa to start his own apprenticeship on Capitol Hill. On the walk back to our townhouse in northeast D.C., a few blocks from the Supreme Court, we were approached by three teenagers. When each teen brandished a revolver, the three of us froze. One youth pointed a gun at my head and demanded money. Staring down the barrel, I slowly reached into my pants pocket and carefully withdrew my wallet. As I handed it over, I hoped -- no, I prayed -- that the kid wouldn't pull the trigger.
The city's staggeringly high levels of gun violence that summer prompted laws that prohibited residents from, among other things, carrying guns, both openly and concealed. Though the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was later overturned, the provision requiring gun registration remains intact, as does the District's assault weapon ban.
I was reminded of this by the ongoing crisis over Arenas, whose argument with a Washington Wizards teammate led to a display of handguns in the team's locker room at the Verizon Center. On December 21, Arenas reportedly brought four unloaded weapons for which he had no permit into the dressing room and put them on a chair with a note asking the teammate to "pick the gun you want." According to the Washington Post, the teammate then grabbed his own pistol, loaded it and chambered a bullet. Last week Arenas was suspended indefinitely without pay. He now faces a possible lifetime expulsion from the NBA and the forfeiture of his contract, which has four years and about $80 million remaining on it after this season.
Personally, I abhor guns and the posturing of the National Rifle Association. I'm normally a fierce advocate of player's rights, but when it comes to carrying firearms or bringing them to the workplace, this Dude cannot abide. I'm unsettled by the notion that athletes need guns for protection. If they're concerned about their safety, they should hire licensed security guards. Guns only increase the possibility of violence.
Arenas brought the wrath of the NBA upon himself. Though some details of his gun story are hazy, no one disputes that his actions and subsequent conduct were inappropriate, insensitive and downright reprehensible. Arenas has done a tremendous disservice to his teammates, fellow NBA players and the Wizards organization. The incident occurred in a pro basketball arena and violated the sanctity of the locker room.
So what is the appropriate penalty? Three years ago Stephen Jackson of the Indiana Pacers was suspended for seven games after he pleaded guilty to criminal recklessness, having discharged a firearm outside a nightclub. A year later Sebastian Telfair, then of the Boston Celtics, got a three-game suspension after copping a plea to criminal possession of a weapon -- after pulling him over for speeding, New York police searched his Range Rover and found a loaded handgun under the passenger seat.
In Arenas' case, lifelong banishment is too draconian. If he were playing up to his former All Star standards, no one would be calling for the termination of his contract. Arenas' behavior should not serve as cover for the Wizards to void a deal that they now regret. His punishment should be firm and severe, but not excessive, and certainly not open-ended. Currently, the NBA's ban on guns imposes no specific penalties, and past sanctions have proven to be inadequate deterrents. Last week Devin Harris of the New Jersey Nets claimed that 75 percent of NBA players, approximately 270 total, own guns. If accurate, that figure -- or even half of it -- is truly horrifying.
The NBA has a zero-tolerance policy on firearms. The league's Collective Bargaining Agreement -- implemented in 2005 -- forbids guns at any NBA venue or event. If I were writing policy, I'd go even farther: Players could own guns for hunting or to defend their homes, but they would not be allowed to pack heat. Violators would draw substantial penalties. I realize that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, but in professional athletics, rights are sometimes limited in deference to a sport's well-being. This issue should be resolved now, while it's still Topic A. Why wait until the CBA expires in 2011? In this era of "teachable moments", there may never be a better time for the league and its players to demonstrate that toting guns is dangerous and reckless and has no place in our society.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." --John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States (1787-1788)
Here it is in more complete context:
"The militia and sovereignty are inseparable. In the English
constitution, if the whole nation were a militia, there would be
a militia to defend the crown, the lords, or the commons, if either
were attacked: the crown, though it commands them, has no power to
use them improperly, because it cannot pay or subsist them without
the consent of the lords and commons; but if the militia are to
obey a sovereignty in a single assembly, it is commanded, paid,
subsisted, and a standing army too may be raised, paid, and
subsisted, by the vote of a majority; the militia then must all
obey the sovereign majority, or divide, and part follow the
majority, and part the minority. This last case is civil war;
but until it comes to this, the whole militia may be employed by
the majority in any degree of tyranny and oppression over the
minority. The constitution [of Britain] furnishes no resource or
remedy; nothing affords a chance of relief but rebellion and civil
war: if this terminates in favour of the minority, they will
tyrannize in their turns, exasperated by revenge, in addition to
ambition and avarice; if the majority prevail, their domination
becomes more cruel, and soon ends in one despot.
.... cont
It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the
executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution
of the laws. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used
at individual discretion, except in private self-defence, or by
partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to
demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that
liberty can be enjoyed by no man --it is a dissolution of the
government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be
created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the
support of the laws. This truth is acknowledged by our author,
when he says, 'The arms of the commonwealth should be lodged in
the hands of that part of the people which are firm to its
establishment.'"
The scenario you describe is not possible for several reasons.
1. Washington DC has never allowed the carry of firearms by Joe-shmoe citizens.
2. Teenagers can not buy revolvers.
3. Mugging people is illegal.
Maybe this was a very realistic dream you had and you now believe it actually happened to you in your waking life, but I assure you that it is not and can not be possible due to the reasons listed.
This happened in Washington DC, no?
There is no provision for carrying a firearm in DC and therefore no way to walk into the arena with it in order to check it in.
Try again.
What an elitist statement.
Since the poor should have equal protection under the law, local, state or federal gov'ts should be obligated to provide licensed security guards to anyone who has a concern about their safety.
The author here seems to be arguing that just because you can afford armed guards, that means you should only have that option and not the option of personally protecting yourself. Last time I checked, the 2A doesn't say "......the right of the people who can't afford bodyguards to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Whatever method celebrities chose to protect themselves is their choice, so long as it's legal. As long as they are complying with the law, it doesn't matter if the percentage of NBA players who carry guns is 100 or 0.
"I'm unsettled by the notion that athletes need guns for protection."
Why not? Athletes are people too, arn't they? Why should they have less rights then the rest of us? The second amendment doesn't say "...the right of people other than athletes to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
"Last week Devin Harris of the New Jersey Nets claimed that 75 percent of NBA players, approximately 270 total, own guns. If accurate, that figure -- or even half of it -- is truly horrifying."
Again, why is that? As long as they are owning and carrying guns legally, it should not matter if the percentage is 100 or 0.
"If they're concerned about their safety, they should hire licensed security guards."
Has it ever occured to you they don't want someone following them around all day? I know I wouldn't. Either way, whether or not they want to carry guns or hire someone else to do it for them is their choice, so long as they do it legally.
"Guns only increase the possibility of violence."
Now this doesn't even make any sense. If guns only increase violence, then why do you trust them in the hands of security guards, or the police? It's time to be logically consistant. Either admit guns are useful for self defense or advocate disarming everyone, including the cops.
Ayn Rand in the Virtues of Selfishness:
If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door--or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistoric savages.
The use of force--even its retaliatory use--cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful co-existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbor's intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice--the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
Gee, no loaded language there.
"Peaceful co-existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment."
Uhhhh, that's the situation we live in right now, no? What assurance do I have that my neighbor(who happens to be a convicted felon) won't unleash force against me at any moment? What's the safety net protecting me?
"the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another."
So you advocate submission to aggression, OK, great for you. I have chosen a different path, grass-hopper.
Crime Statistics > Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country: USA = 24th on the list.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Can you identify a single instance of the BC or VPC or FSA or GNG or CFNJ or PEG or IANSA voicing opposition to ANY gun confiscation that has ALREADY occured in America?
Well, can you?
What Arn doesn't tell you is that despite the enactment of DC's draconian gun control laws, they still consistently lead the nation in per capita murders. In 2007, DC's per capita murder rate was 30.8/100,000. The next highest? Lousiana at 14.2/100,000.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0297.pdf
So Arn's bias is showing. I will agree that Arenas should be punished because what he did was illegal. However, the broader message in Arn's hoplophobic post here is that more guns=more crime, which couldn't be further from the truth and has been debunked continuously over the past several decades.
The inconvenient truth for this anti-rights lobbyist is that violent crime across the country has seen a 10% reduction overall. A 10% reduction despite the numerous pro-gun legislation which has passed over the last few years. A 10% reduction despite a record number of gun sales from 2008-2009. A 10% reduction despite a record number of concealed-carry permit applications. A 10% reduction after record enrollment in CCW classes.
Drimble actually makes the case for pro-gun arguments, since DC's reduction in homicides comes at the heels of the Heller decision. Concidence?
"Concealed carry laws do not, as their proponents argue, aid police and enhance public safety. Instead, they threaten law enforcement and arm criminals. "
Need a source for this please.
Drimble, check Chicago's homicide rate and get back to me. Unless I can assume that you are trumpeting Chicago's sub-500 homicide tally from 2008 as "proof" that gun bans are working there?
Try again, we'll wait.
Oh, PS....careful about citing the VPC. You know who funds them, right?
" Research by the Violence Policy Center "
You might as well stop right there.
"The paper found more than 1,400 people who had pleaded guilty or no contest to felony charges yet qualified for concealed carry licenses because of a loophole in the law. "
Not all felonies are violent. Tax evasion is a felony.
If the licensed security guard has a gun, doesn't that negate his own presence?
Arn's suggestion is a well-considered step toward preempting shootouts and gunplay.
It is obvious that people have different views on gun control, but the article is much more than a mere debate about gun control. The article is stressing that guns have no place in professional sports, especially considering how professional athletes are role models in the community. The issue is not about if Arenas should've checked his guns in with arena security, the issue is that Arenas should've never had these guns in the first place. He is a role model and professional athletes should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the people in this country. The NBA should use Arenas as an opportunity to send a message to the rest of the NBA by suspending him for the rest of the season.
Thank you for the article, Mr. Tellem. As always, the article is fantastic.
If you are saying that what Arenas did was wrong, I agree and he should be punished by the NBA. If you are saying that he (and presumably all other NBA players- professional athletes) should not own guns whatsoever, I disagree. If that is what you are suggesting, you are actually asserting that gun owners are morally reprehensible by the mere fact that they own guns. Prominent ex atheletes who are members of the NRA are Karl Malone, Nolan Ryan and Steve Largent. Bret Favre is an avid hunter and gun owner as is Terry Bradshaw... I could go on but I hope you see my point. We should judge a person on the content of their charater and not upon the ownership of an item.
As for the person being assaulted by someone else: If the "victim" has a firearm (legal concealed carry, meaning they have a permit), then they have been taught to not draw the firearm unless it is necessary -- if a person wants the victim's wallet, just give them the wallet.
If they are being assaulted to the degree where lethal force is authorized, then they will draw because quite frankly at that point they have little to lose. And statistically, the mere sight of a firearm in the hands of the "victim" usually stops the crime, rarely do defenders actually end up pulling the trigger.
Concealed carry does not have to involve the majority of the population to be effective. As little as 10% can make a difference and 20% makes a huge difference. Beyond that, you start seeing deminishing returns.