Words and Bullets

The "debate" about guns has clogged up the dialogue about a safe society, and I'm wondering what we can do about that.

Last week's Supreme Court ruling, which overturned Washington, D.C.'s gun ban and reinterpreted the tortuously worded Second Amendment -- "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" -- as referring to individual rather than collective armed self-defense, has stoked the "debate," of course. It has emboldened the gun-rights true believers, but managed only vaguely to acknowledge the larger context of America's spreading culture of violence, about which we remain officially clueless.

I'm willing to concede two points to the gun owners: One, the bureaucracy of gun control stirs up the same resentment and defiance that Prohibition did and such legislation applied too broadly and indiscriminately is likely unworkable; and two, the key to safety is empowerment, both collective and individual.

As one anonymous writer put it in response to a recent column of mine: "An Armed Person Is A Citizen; An Unarmed Person Is A Subject." To this I would say, sir, there are no subject-wimps or agents of the king participating in this dialogue. But I would add that empowerment is a function of inner calmness and courage; those who feel they must be armed to be empowered are not empowered.

And here we get at the essence of the clog. America's gun subculture affects to be participating in the dialogue, but is in fact merely advancing an agenda. For instance, one of the lurid, attention-grabbing signs that pro-gun demonstrators waved last week on the steps of the Supreme Court declared: "More guns equals less crime."

This is not a serious comment on crime or violence, but it's a hell of a distraction -- on the order of the "vigil" held by gun-rights advocates outside Columbine High School shortly after the massacre there, while President Clinton was inside meeting with students. According to news reports at the time, they held up bright yellow signs reading "Gun Control Kills Kids" and "We Will Never Give Up Our Guns," seemingly oblivious to the deep inappropriateness of such a political intrusion on the process of mourning and healing.

The message they in fact communicated, and which the country has taken to heart, is that they have no shame. They will stop at nothing, will manipulate any tragedy, in their defense of the right to bear arms, and any difficulties and complexities caused by such a right are not open to discussion.

It doesn't matter, for instance, that a gun in the house is more likely to be used on a relative (or oneself) than an intruder; that petty arguments (even between law-abiding citizens) frequently turn into unspeakable tragedies when a gun is involved; that in a country saturated with some 200 million firearms, anyone can get one for any reason whatsoever; that the nation's police chiefs and most law-enforcement personnel support gun bans such as the one the Supreme Court just overturned; and that gun laws do reduce gun homicide rates. None of this matters because the right to bear arms supercedes, if necessary, the right of Americans to live in peace and safety.

Because that last point cannot be stated overtly, many gun-rights proponents advocate a cover alternative for maintaining peace and safety: Let Americans carry concealed weapons! After every high-profile gun tragedy, I get press releases pointing out that if just one victim had been armed, the killer could have been stopped. "More guns equals less crime."

That there might be complex consequences to a society of armed high school students, armed teachers, armed churchgoers, armed shoppers -- armed 4-year-olds? -- apparently doesn't matter. Such a society would no longer be based on trust. If we reach that point, I guess the debate's over and they win.

But not even Antonin Scalia is that crazy. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he wrote for the majority. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

All this said, I return to the crying need in this country for a dialogue and soul-searching about who we are. The "debate" over gun control really has only one side, those who are against it. Their passionate faith in guns to protect them is not matched by opponents who just as passionately despise guns and want them all confiscated.

Our passion is for an end to violence and the building of a culture of trust, part of which includes sensible and workable gun laws. It includes much more than this as well. And such a project will take everyone, including those who vehemently disagree with some of the points I've made in this column. This is what I mean by dialogue, and the time to begin is now.

Like bullets, words can be used to wound. But they can also be used to transform. There's a reason why the First Amendment precedes the Second.

- - -

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at [e-mail] or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

Comments

[Thirdpower]

Illinois Factoids according to the 2006 IL Uniform Crime Report and Chicago Crime Report.

Chicago has a HS drop out rate of 50%. 95% of murders this year have been committed by people w/ criminal records. Over 70% of victims have had records. Murder rates this year alone have risen 13% in the city with Robbery up 10%.

Illinois had a population of 12.8 million w/ a murder rate of 6.1/100K (780) .

Chicago had 22.2% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 60% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 16.4/100K .

Cook County had 41.4% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 73.6% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 10.83/100K .

The Cook County murders in raw number/per capita increased 4.4% and 4.9% respectively while arrest numbers and rates dropped over 18% from '05 to '06.

If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 3.14.

Were the rest of Cook County to follow suit, the rate would drop to 2.74.

Guns are effectively banned in Chicago and severely restricted in Cook County.

Your claims do not measure up to the facts. Perhaps a more realistic view of the firearm debate would be formed if you didn't get all your information from Brady Campaign press releases.

[s2s2s2]

Sorry. I forgot "restraint".

[s2s2s2]

We are all armed with words that are harmful. Knowing this, many of us hold our tongues, or use them in the defense of others. Change the word "words' with the word "guns".
As with the use of words, the use of guns requires extensive education, and of course; constant maintenance.

[Rothgar]

Ok Berettasskeeter let's see the data. Further, lets see GUN CRIME RATE data.
Last time I checked all I found was statistical evasion primarily on the part of Gun Rights activists. The NRA and others tout VIOLENT CRIME RATES even though the issue is GUN CRIME and it's cousin GUN Deaths. I have a lot better chance of surviving getting hit than getting shot.
Concerning Japan what on Earth does suicide rates (which can be affixiation, jumping from thing, poison etc) have to do with Gun Crimes? Please explain. Also, I note the Japanese murder is the lowest around (about one-hundred the rate in the US .15 vs ~15).
I don't own any guys because I am not that big a wimp that I need a gun to feel tough. I think this obsession with guns is more proof America has become a coward nation.

[djkrlsn]

Rothgar--your chances of surviving getting hit depends on what you get hit with. If you get shot with a handgun, you have a good chance of surviving--if you get hit in the head with a baseball bat, in the neck with a machete, kukri or tomahawk, in the ribs with a 'hawk or battleax, gutted with any serious field knife, cut across the femoral artery--you are going to going to meet your maker.

[djkrlsn]

Death and violence by gun is no different than death and violence by any other means, and in terms of cowardice--a person using a firearm for self defense is not being a coward, that person is using an effective tool for a particular job (the right to self defense means more than the right for a victim to engage in physical combat in with a criminal)

[Berettasskeeter]

Well articulated, if the facts were in your favor, which they are not. And if shame at one's actions were a factor, the Left would hide in their closets and keep their mouths shut.
Those areas that have liberalized (little L) their gun laws have seen decreases in crime. Admittedly, liberalized gun laws are not the sole reason for this. However, those areas, primarily large cities, that have restrictive gun laws, and laws that penalize self-defense, have seen increases in crime. Again, gun laws are not the sole reason. But, the signs are there for anyone to see, and complaining that 4-year olds will have guns is merely a strawman for their unwillingness to see the truth.
Semper fi

[djkrlsn]

A couple of quick points here:John Lott has documented that more guns really does mean less crime; gun bans in Chicago and Washington are an abject failure; a big percentage of gun violence is criminal on crimnal; and as has been well documented by Japan, Japan's strict gun control laws has done nothing to change the fact that Japan has a far higher rate of suicide than does the U S

[jkohnke]

Well said! As you say, words can would like bullets. But, if bullets are used in an argument, there is no further discussion.

[jkohnke]

sorry . . . I meant 'words can wound like bullets . . .'