I am not surprised that the Daily News of Newburyport is subjecting itself to the centuries-old debate over the merits of the 2nd 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.
What does surprise me is in the wake of three opinions that the Daily News published over the past two months, is nobody is connecting a common element that everyone is talking about but only insular to their own arguments.
First, though, it’s important to trace the history:
The series, if I may, began on March 25, 2008 in an op-ed written by Amesbury resident Robert McGlew.
Titled “Guns, gumption and government,” McGlew argues that an armed professor at Virginia Tech would have, or at the least, could have, prevented many more deaths by shooting the shooter.
The best defense against a gun is a gun! One armed professor at Virginia Tech would have saved many lives. Sounds radical but we are in a crisis because of loose laws on gun ownership, and the easy availability of all kinds of guns and ammunition.
To me, it doesn’t sound radical at all. Rather, it is reminiscent of the Hammurabi Code of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Surely, McGlew isn’t suggesting society regress to Babylonian law?
He goes on and says evil is a reality and we are feeding the evil among us with music, movies, TV and the ever-expanding world of pornography. Without the stabilizing influence of faith in the one true God, people are spinning out of control.
I saw this one coming, as the op-ed’s byline indicates McGlew is a semi-retired minister, so God forbid, of course mass media and porn are to blame for gun-crazy individuals.
Next up in the series is Amesbury resident Andrew Shirshac who wrote this letter to the editor on May 7, 2008 with the title, “Guns are not the answer.”
Shirshac directly responds to the former minister and says, Evil is certainly a fair description of certain acts, but they are committed by people, just people. People shaped by experience, other people, and sometimes mental illness. Massacre-scale violence is often committed by very sick people. Shooting them would end the specific situation, but is that the best general prescription?
This reads like a lot of fluff without any substance. People beget people and people’s experience beget other experiences. I get it. Why doesn’t Shirshac respond to the notion of faith in the one true God as McGlew suggested? No response necessary.
The latest letter to the editor is published today, May 21, 2008, by Newburyport resident William Emmith, titled “Armed citizens best way to stop crime,” cites studies by criminologists Gary Kleck and John R. Lott and suggests an armed citizen is the solution to crime.
In recent years the right to carry a firearm has been made law in over 38 states. The blood path feared by such as Mr. Shirshac did not occur. Indeed, the opposite was the result: Crime declined. The fact is you are 1,000 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than by an accident with a firearm. Do the research.
I’ll give you research.
Between July 1995 and April 1997, gun homicides in Boston dropped 70 percent for males under 27 and 50 percent for males 25 and over, according to the April 4, 1997 issue of The CQ Researcher.
The reason for the homicidal decrease is because Boston police teamed up with federal law enforcers and targeted urban gangs; in one instance, a gang member with 15 prior convictions was sentenced to 20 years in a federal prison for carrying a single bullet in his pocket.
If you want to carry a gun, Bill, I have no problem with that. But should any person, at any age or any mental capacity, be able to similarly possess a firearm? Should the ability to fire a gun be no more limiting than the ability to tie one’s shoelaces? That’s how your letter reads.
And why do you mention the death-by-doctor angle? Are you implying if doctors are eliminated there would be less medical deaths? More people die every year from motor vehicle accidents than gun shootings; so do we ban cars?
The common element that everyone mentions but doesn’t relate to each other is that society must cleanse itself. McGlew and Shirshac come closest to agreeing on this by talking about the evil in society.
For clarification, I point you to an April 2007 article in the Anchorage Daily News by staff writer Craig Medred.
Medred talks about the Virginia Tech tragedy and concludes that regardless if an armed citizen duked it out with the killer or if gun control laws were tougher, the controversy is moot.
Both arguments are as valid as they are invalid, writes Medred.
Medred insists the problem is not gun control or lack of gun control, but there is a national epidemic of rage.
He goes on and says that guns are part of the problem that also include knives and baseball bats. Do we arm, as McGlew suggests for guns, every citizen with knives and bats too? Neither Kleck nor Lott, based on my cursory research, talk about knives and bats, let alone rage. Response, Emmith?
Guns aren’t bad things or good things, Medred writes. They’re things, inanimate objects, chunks of metal with no will of their own. They’re really not the problem. We are.
Amen.
No related posts.
Comments:
Ari Herzog is an online media strategist and Newburyport City Councilor-Elect.
978-558-0008
ConvoTrack
Comments on this entry are closed.