In Which I Defend Individual Gun Rights, Sort Of

It took a while, but I finally figured out why the gun rights debate in this country bothers me so.

It's not because the Second Amendment is so very malleable. Those seeking greater regulation quote the second clause, which begins with the words "a well-regulated militia." Those seeking less regulation point to the final words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment is beautifully vague -- it supports, at least on the surface, both arguments. (The authors of the Bill of Rights were most excellent in their foresight, in ensuring that the wording they chose would keep debate perpetually alive. Slow clap for those guys.)

Don't blink

It's not because I look down on hunting for sport. I do shake my head at senseless killing, but that's a matter of personal preference, not constitutional law. Hunt, if you want. Fill out the right forms, get a license, then go ahead, shoot some Bambis dead this weekend. My disdain is showing again. Have this helping of honesty to balance it out: truthfully, it's not the actual death of the hunted animal that bothers me. I like meat. There's something that feels right about executing our food chain responsibilities. Something feels natural and orderly about it.

Going on, the gun debate is so maddening NOT because I sympathize with activists who dedicate their lives to curtailing individual gun rights. I admire their work, but I could never do it, it'd be way too depressing. The culture and history of this country make any effort to curb handgun availability an exercise in futility. You might as well try and convince believers that there is no God. Ever tried that? Don't try it. Try other things first. Try every other thing first!

No, it's because whenever one of the "sides" scores a temporary victory, the balance of rights and responsibilities is upset once again. Witness:

When gun rights advocates get their way and win another round of legislative Russian Roulette against evil regulations, the end result is that more people die. Period.

Less regulation means more accidents happen, more disturbed people get their hands on more guns more easily, more kids blow their brother's or neighbor's head off. Did you know that the District of Columbia, immediately after enacting its citywide handgun ban, suddenly had the lowest rate of teen suicide in the nation?

Did you know that a gun in the home is 43 times (43 times!) more likely to kill a friend or family member than an intruder? (43 times.)

Guns make it easier!

Did you know that the firearm-related death rate is 12 times higher for American children than for kids in 25 other rich countries -- combined? You read that right. Twelve times higher than the sum of the all the rates in 25 other countries. Go team USA!

Those folks fighting for fewer gun restrictions can couch all their arguments as deep as they want in the language of rights, but the corporate irresponsibility they display is reprehensible.

"Your nephew died in an accidental shooting? Your cousin got shot at work? Your brother-in-law took his own life? Not my problem. Get your filthy paws off my guns."

But enough picking on people who don't care if the defense of their rights costs us lives we didn't have to lose. Flip the coin with me for a second, so we can pick on other people. I don't want to live in a country where constitutionally guaranteed rights are endangered. Do you? I might not be crazy about guns, but I sure as hell want the option of choosing my own religious beliefs, and I'd like to have a responsible, aggressive free press someday again, not just in theory, but even in practice. Items in the Bill of Rights should be pretty well untouchable. (Including habeas corpus, but NOT NOW JOHN STAY ON TOPIC)

So no thank you to those who would strike the Second Amendment from the constitutional record. No thank you to those of us whose reading comprehension fails miserably somewhere in between "a well-regulated militia" and "shall not be infringed." No thank you to who can not see the trees (individual rights) but for the forest (corporate responsibility). How is that at all in keeping with the spirit of freedom that makes this country so great?

Then what about a compromise? What about a happy ending? A happy medium, where citizens debate back and forth, working together to smartly craft gun laws that protect rights and encourage responsibility at the same time?

What about I stop asking question and admit a sad truth: The happy medium doesn't exist, not that we have the people in place to get us there anyway. Have you even been paying attention to our politics, like, ever?

No worries. Like many other instances, a reasonable answer comes not from addressing the problem of gun rights on a collective scale, but on an individual one. When I exercise my right to be disgusted by the NRA, I'm actually confirming someone's right to join it. Good thing, too.

So by allowing folks to stash guns unsafely in their homes, I'm actually preserving my right to tell my kids that guns are dangerous. I'm protecting my right to forbid them from playing in homes that contain guns. I'm free to keep instilling in them that for reasons of corporate responsibility, we don't do guns. If others like to collect death toys, well, that's the world we live in, be on your toes, they have that choice.

Conclusion: if others weren't allowed to make the wrong choice, we wouldn't be allowed to make the right one, nor would we be allowed to point out the violent, ridiculous legacy of the past 250 years of "debate" on this topic. And I'm not ready to lose my right to make good choices, or my right to assign ridicule and blame where ridicule are blame are due.

Hey look, this post is done. Whew. Just shoot me now.