The Dead, the Bad, and the Ugly

There are more than 10,000 gun-related homicides in the United States each year. This year, one of those was a seventeen year old boy in Florida, shot by a grown man who followed him around the neighborhood despite a police dispatcher’s specific instructions.

Just because George Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder for the killing of Trayvon Martin does not mean that he’ll be convicted. Normally, the case would be pretty straightforward: no one disputes that Zimmerman pulled the trigger on the pistol that he proudly carried like an over-imaginative twelve year old might carry a cap gun. No one disputes that the bullet he fired took the life of a teenage boy. In almost every other Western country in the entire world, he would be convicted of the murder that he clearly committed. In Florida, the outcome is less clear.

The state of Florida—like the state of Vermont and any state where the NRA successfully promotes lawlessness and vigilante justice—has incredibly lax gun laws. The only reason that they didn’t pass a bill allowing guns on school property is that a frat boy waving an AK-47 at an FSU party accidentally killed the daughter of one of the bill’s supporter’s closest friends. While a frat party may be off limits, any of the state’s more than 800,000 permit holders can proudly carry their gun into a bar.Another law, known as “Stand Your Ground,” allows people to shoot anyone who they think poses a reasonable threat to them. Under this law three gang members who killed an innocent bystander when they were attacked by a rival gang were all acquitted.

I can’t make these stories up.

If Zimmerman goes to trial, all he will have to say is that he acted in self-defense, despite the call that clearly shows him chasing after an unarmed teenager who—surprise—may have felt threatened. If he can claim self-defense, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not defending himself. With no real witnesses, that’s incredibly difficult to prove. Under this law any person can murder another person, and if the prosecution fails to prove that they weren’t a threat, they walk free. Little separates this standard from lynching, mob justice, or honor killing.

There is only one real purpose of guns: the taking of life. Yes, you can use them for shooting targets. But the logic that a pistol or assault rifle is necessary for target practice is like arguing that a tank is necessary to drive to work, or that I need a supercomputer for my regression homework. Just because it does the job does not make it necessary.

The second amendment says that “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.” George Zimmerman was not in a well-regulated militia, or any militia; he was a grown man playing soldier. Instead of indulging his violent imagination in a game of Call of Duty, he took it out into the night, onto the streets. For men like him, and for anyone not serving in this “well-regulated militia,” gun ownership should be restricted to hunting weapons or, at the most, to a safely-stored weapon in the home, not hanging from his belt as he roams the streets. America will forever be plagued by the horrible types of violence that almost led to the death of Representative Gabrielle Giffords last year, and the hasty justice that caused the death of a Florida teenager the other week until we abandon our self-destructive fetish for firearms.

On September 11th, 2001, terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans, and we swore to pursue them to the ends of the earth. We spared no measure or expense. We surrendered rights to the FBI, the NSA, and the TSA. We spent countless billions in order to ensure that in the years following, such a tragedy would never happen again.

That same year, guns killed four times as many Americans, and in the decade since we’ve expanded access to these guns while many long-standing bans fell to the pressure of NRA lobbying. These policies allowed the death of Trayvon Martin, and they contribute to the deaths of more than 30 Americans every day. If we truly value life then surely surrendering our Glock 19s, our AK-47s, and our AR-15s is a fair price to pay to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The Dead, the Bad, and the Ugly

  1. Pingback: Do People Really Believe Things LIke This?

  2. A few comments for you…

    A police dispatcher is not the same as a police officer. Zimmerman was under no obligation to follow their orders.

    Show that the NRA promotes lawlessness and vigilante justice. If that were true, gun owners (and especially people who have concealed weapons permits) would have a higher per capita rate of committing crimes. Actually, the opposite is true. People with concealed license permits tend to be law abiding, contributing members of society.

    You can make the argument that firearms have no place in someone’s hand who is drinking, and most people (ccw holders included) would agree with you. Me merely going into a bar or bar/restaurant (like Friday’s) isn’t going to cause me to want to shoot someone though.

    Of course the prosecution should have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the way our justice system works. Would you like to consider everyone guilty, and make them prove they are not?

    I’ll continue your analogy of tools being unnecessary. You think a tank isn’t necessary to drive to work. What about a Lamborghini? An Escalade? How about a Corvette? A Prius? They all have the ability to commit crimes right? After all, they can speed and endanger people. Look at the old lady who slammed into the grocery store recently. Make them drive no faster than 65 MPH. Make everyone drive 4 door sub compact cars and limit their freedom to choose a car for themselves. Outlawing those sports cars and large SUVs sounds kind of ridiculous right? Well, so does outlawing some firearms based on the fact they can be dangerous.

    Let’s move onto your argument about the Second Amendment (which should be capitalized). Where in the amendment does it say you have to be a member of a well-regulated militia? At the time of its writing “well-regulated” meant taken care of, and working in a proper order. So, well-regulated meant having the militia trained and ready to go at a minute’s notice, like the minutemen. The Second Amendment basically states “Because a ready militia is necessary, the right of the people shall not be infringed.” Sounds pretty straight forward.

    You are right. America will always be plagued by violence, whether it is firearm related or not. Limiting firearms won’t solve the issue. Criminals will always have firearms. There is no way around this. Having a firearm doesn’t magically turn me into a crazed lunatic shooting at everything that moves. Because a small subset of the population abuses something doesn’t mean that the entire country should lose a right.

    The concealed carry movement has been gaining steam since the mid to late 80’s. If so many more people have firearms, the number of homicides should have been going up right? Surprise! The actual number of firearms related deaths is the same as it was when CCW movements started in the mid 80’s. The per capita rate has actually decreased.

    In conclusion. You can’t rescind the rights of an entire nation on the acts of one person. Sure, Zimmerman could have done things differently. There is no denying that, even from firearms enthusiasts. Vehicles aren’t restricted because in speed because they have the ability to kill. That lady that ran into the grocery store should have no impact on me being able to purchase a fast car. Outlawing pools to stop drownings sounds ridiculous right? Well, outlawing firearms because of the actions of one person sounds pretty ridiculous to me too.

    • There’s a difference between a standard of reasonable doubt applying to criminal guilt versus applying to “self defense” as practiced by Zimmerman.

      There’s a difference between having the ability to use an object for crime – like a car – versus having the intended purpose of causing death.

      I take less offense with conceal-carry than I do with laws like Stand Your Ground or the type of loopholes that allow anyone to buy weapons of all kinds at gun shows.

      And comparing gun ownership rates to crime rates is WAY oversimplistic. There are a lot of fun papers on that topic, like this one

      But thanks for reading, and your well though-out response. I really appreciate it.

  3. Pingback: Parade of Coffins | Apply Liberally

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s