Tragically, the USA has seen a spate of gun rampages in schools and universities, the latest causing 6 deaths, including the gunman himself, just out of Chicago. Not surprisingly, these outrages have been headline news, but what surprises us, as Australians, is the response of some of the "shock-jocks" on talk back radio.
As we are driving around, we spend a lot of time listening to the car radio. The music stations are usually boring (although we found a lot of great bluegrass music when we were on the Blue Ridge Parkway), and we gravitate to the talk stations on the AM band. On the day after the lastest rampage, we were listening to some guy called Al (we rarely know their last names). For two hours he assailed his listeners with his belief that the answer to these multiple gun crimes is for everyone to carry guns. We find this an extraordinary approach. In US schools, it is apparently forbidden/illegal to carry weapons, even if you have a permit, and Al says this makes them soft targets, and the victims, who can't shoot back, are no better than sheep at slaughter. He would have his audience believe that if teachers and students carried guns, then the perpetrators of these crimes would realise that they could face resistance and would think twice. The fact is that most of the gunmen in these situations are killed by police or themselves in the end. This would be known to the gunmen which means they are prepared to die in the process and thus would not be afraid of "resistance". This fact seems to escape Al, and indeed most of the people who call into his program and are of a like mind. We suppose that more rational people do not listen to Al's program.
It would be a fallacy to argue that supporting the right to carry guns into school is restricted to fanatical sections of the media. On the same day as the above radio broadcast, USA Today (a national newspaper that we regard as reasonably balanced because it usually gives both sides of an argument) reported that 12 US states, following the previous campus massacre, are currently considering laws which will prevent the prohibition on carrying guns at universities.
To use the common parlance, there is an "elephant in the room" on this topic. It is never discussed. It must be a taboo to debate the role of the second amendment to the US Constitution, viz: the right to bear arms, or to acknowledge the possible contribution of the ready availability of firearms to the occurrence of gun crime. We believe that if guns were much more difficult to obtain (you can buy them at Wal-Mart!), then the frequency of gun crime would be reduced, and that this would be a better solution than to have everyone carrying guns, as Al proposes. Al's listeners arguments include some memorable statements like "if guns are outlawed, then only the outlaws will have guns" and "if deer could shoot back, there would be less hunters". These are cute expressions, and both are no doubt true, but they are not the point. These gun massacres at schools are not being carried out by outlaws: they are being carried out by deranged people who, for whatever reason, have ready access to guns and ammunition.
The second amendment is sacred territory in the USA and cannot be discussed, it seems, no matter what atrocities are perpetrated because of it. Several weeks ago, we recall, another right-wing talk back radio host was inviting his audience to discuss which was the most important of the freedoms guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights. Was it religious freedom, or free speech? No, most listeners argued, it was the right to bear arms!
Australians and others know only too well (e.g. Port Arthur) that tougher gun laws are no guarantee against gun crime, but surely they help. The suggestion that everyone should carry guns to discourage anyone from using them is absurd. The fear of death won't stop the lunatic: they are of the same mind as suicide bombers.
No comments:
Post a Comment