In my October 3rd post, I wrote that I intended to start a series of posts on the subject of controlling gun violence. In the intervening weeks, much else has happened that I've wanted to comment on, and so now I'm finally getting back to this topic.

On October 10th, in the wake of the tragic murder of young girls at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, the President sprang into action by doing what presidents always do at such times - he announced a panel to study the issue. You can read the White House press release trumpeting this move at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061010.html.

I personally think this is stupid.

We lose hundreds of our citizens each year to gun violence, and yet we absolutely refuse even to consider any measures that might restrict our ability as citizens to own guns. The National Rifle Association and similar organizations become hysterical at the least suggestion that the ability to keep guns might be infringed, regardless of the social cost of that ownership. How did we get to this state?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Holy Grail of gun ownership advocates, reads: "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 did the framers of the Constitution mean when they wrote these words? Some today argue that they intended citizens to be armed as protection against the unchecked power of their own government. My personal opinion is that the framers recognized two things: professional standing armies represented a potential government tool of oppression, and in the era before 24-hour supermarkets, people needed to be able to hunt for their meals. The practical result: with no standing army for defense against external threats (British, French, Indians, etc), a "well-regulated Militia" was necessary, which needed to be armed to be effective. Those same arms that would be carried to a muster of the Militia would also serve to put meat on the family's table.

In the year 2006, not many of us need to shoot our own dinner, and we have a very large, well-trained, and heavily-funded Army to defend us. In my mind, that removes two of the arguments for unregulated ownership of guns. I don't feel particularly threatened by the U.S. Army...after all, right now it's pretty busy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am, however, very concerned about all the people around me every day who are able to act on their urges with powerful and easily-available weapons. Gun advocates claim that if people didn't have guns, they would still kill each other. True. But I think we'd find that it's considerably harder to kill someone up close with a knife, a club, or one's bare hands than from a distance with a firearm.

I have more to say on this topic, but I want to do some more research before I get any farther into it. For now, let's just say that I'm pretty skeptical about the absolute need for everyone to own a gun, and I think it's high time we had a detailed, rational debate about the Second Amendment in a time of AK-47's, Uzis, armor-piercing bullets, and proliferating handguns.

Yes, I'm worried. I'm worried about you, and what you might do with those guns you just have to have.

More thoughts later.

Bilbo