July 24, 2012 6:52 AM

Fortress America: The world we truly wish to live in?

JOHNSON: Well, it’s certainly one of the rationales behind conceal and carry, where criminals actually have to be a little concerned before they commit a criminal act that maybe somebody could stop them. And I think that is the truth. That somebody, a responsible individual had been carrying a weapon, maybe — maybe — they could have prevented the death and injuries. I mean, that’s just the truth.

FEINSTEIN: And maybe you could have had a firefight and killed many more people.

In the wake of the tragedy in Aurora, CO, I’ve been struck by the almost uniform response from Right-wing pundits and politicians. With slight variations along the way, it goes something like this:

“If at least one responsible person in that movie theater had a gun, they probably could have stopped the shooter before he killed 12 people and injured more. This senseless act proves that we need to make it easier for responsible Americans to own and carry firearms. Criminals will think twice when they have reason to fear that their intended targets may themselves be armed.”

It’s an interesting argument that makes sense on an emotional level, but it doesn’t hold up in the real world. The idea that MORE GUNS = MORE SAFETY ignores one very basic reality: a bullet, once loosed from the barrel of a firearm, becomes a free agent. It neither knows nor cares who or what it was initially aimed at or where it’s ultimate destination lies. When firing a handgun in an enclosed space, the bullet doesn’t disappear, as always seems to happen on TV. A bullet will ricochet off anything and everything in its path, animate or inanimate. The damage it does is indiscriminate and controlled only by muzzle velocity and geometry.

So how does introducing even MORE firearms into public venues serve to make anyone safer? The answer is that it doesn’t. The only safety created by a firearm is that which exists in the minds of gun advocates. MORE GUNS does not equal MORE SAFETY. It’s far more like to equal unintended casualties from ricochets or rounds fired wildly in the heat of the moment.

If we’re going to discuss about making America safer and protecting Americans from random, senseless acts of violence, the answer is NOT more guns. If we want to create an environment in which innocent people are shot by accident in a moment of panic or are killed and wounded by ricochets, more guns is certainly the way to go. And what happens when the bullets start flying and police or other shooters can’t distinguish the good guy(s) from the the bad guy(s)? Bullets don’t distinguish good targets from bad targets; they go where muzzle velocity and geometry dictate.

If we’re to have an honest debate about guns in America, it would help if those advocating for more guns could be honest about what happens when the bullets begin flying and the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in. Yes, it’ certainly possible that some brave citizen might bring down the bad guy, but how many innocents will be the victim of friendly fire? How about we take that into consideration? To ignore it would be dishonest- not that this debate has been characterized by honesty on the part of gun advocates.

For me, it comes down to one question: Do we want to live in Fortress America, a place where theaters and other public venues can be turned into free-fire zones at a moment’s notice? If we as a society are willing to answer that question in the affirmative, then who will be held responsible for the collateral damage? Guns are not the solution; in the vast majority of cases, they will simply add to the chaos and carnage. The sooner Americans- especially gun advocates- own up to that reality, the sooner we can get down to having an honest conversation.

Like that’s going to happen….

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on July 24, 2012 6:52 AM.

Who says the truth isn't fungible? was the previous entry in this blog.

Penn State: 'Tis better to be thought a fool than to take to Twitter and remove all doubt is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.13-en