It happened again, this time at the U.S. Holocaust Museum. One more crazy person unleashed gun madness. Over the past few years we’ve witnessed this insanity on college campuses, in houses of worship and now, in all places, the U.S. Holocaust Museum. The reputed 88 year old white supremacist who apparently intended to gun down people in the museum was thwarted, thankfully, by Steven Tyrone Johns, an heroic security guard. 
Gun lovers typically argue that when a perpetrator encounters an armed person--the perpetrator will either back down or get shot. The way to stop gun violence is with guns. We can prevent gun violence so long as sane and rational people are properly armed. So, crazy people care--or even notice?
Isn't there a deeper question? What can we do to stop or at least slow down the insanity of gun violence that is reaching epidemic proportions in this country other than making it easier to own a gun? What would a national strategy to prevent gun violence look like?
According to the party line of the NRA and many gun owners, the way out of the quagmire of insane gun violence is to arm sane and sensible adults.
Here’s the logic: the more people that have guns and are able to defend themselves, the less likely it is that crazy people will terrorize innocent folks. As recently as last week a Kentucky pastor, Ken Pagano in Louisville, Kentucky said, “without a deep seated belief in God or firearms this country would not be here today.”
Pastor Pagano has invited his church members to pack heat at a special service. Calling for an “open carry service” on June 27th he said that people should come with their guns—unloaded—as a symbol of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
Okay. People have a right to keep and bear arms. But aren't there limits to this logic? I confess my bias. If Jesus wouldn’t pack a pistol in church isn’t it hypocritical to tell church members to come to church with gun in holster or in hand?
Here’s what I really don't understand.
Whenever I say gun ownership should be more tightly controlled—gun advocates react not with reason but rage. Consistently I am told that my dislike of guns simply reflects stupidity and cowardice. They say, people have a right to defend themselves and me, not being a gun lover is proof that I don't believe in self defense. Like Pastor Pagano they argue that guns are what made this country great.
Granted, guns have defended this country. But it's guns that make us great? Wow.
Okay, maybe I am a coward. But if I’m a coward, so was Mahatma Gandhi.
Early on in the campaign to free India from British colonialism Gandhi decided to venture into the northwest frontier province of India. He had heard there were freedom fighters in the northwest. They were really tough guys. They were people who lived by the law, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”.
His friends and confidants did everything within their power to keep him from going. They thought it was suicide for him to go. They said, “these are really violent people. Fighting is all they know. They will laugh at you and who knows what else.” But Gandhi said "I must go." His friends said, “You can’t go these people are real fighters”. Gandhi answered, “I am a real fighter, but I want to teach them how to fight without violence.”
After a long journey he sat upon a green hill clad only in his loin cloth, surrounded by a skeptical, scowling crowd of hardened fighters. All these men stood around him holding tightly to their riffles. As he sat looking at them, he smiled. There was a great silence and then, out of the mouth of this little dark brown stick figure came the words: “Well, are you afraid? You look to me like you are afraid.” Impatiently they shifted around. “I think you are afraid” He said. “Why else would you be carrying guns if you weren’t afraid?” They stared at him, a little stunned. No one had ever dared to speak to them like this before.
But he wouldn’t stop, “You see” he said, “I have no fear; this is why I am unarmed. This,” he said, “is what ahimsa (do no harm) means.” Standing there after a while, the leader Abdul Kahn said, “no fear, huh”. Tell me about this no fear”. “Ahimsa,” Gandhi said, “is perfect love. To extend this love even to those you hate is what makes you fearless; it’s what makes you strong.”
Gandhi wasn’t arguing for some pie-in-the-sky ideal of no need for self defense. In part, he was saying that our collective self defense requires us to think differently about what it means to be secure. Thinking differently in our culture may mean saying that even if people have a right to keep and bear arms, we must begin to figure out ways to limit (not prevent) gun ownership.
Many gun owners have an irrational fear of life without weapons.
Why, for example, do gun enthusiasts steadfastly oppose the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence? Even if you believe the 2nd Amendment ensures the right of individual gun ownership, aren't there reasonable limits? Isn't just plain common sense that we need stronger gun laws?
Sooner or later we as people must realize that national security is not simply a matter of being armed. Are there no reasonable limitations to the right of gun ownership? Can't we do something to better regulate who buys guns? It would seem that the gun lobby doesn't think so.
Read the headlines. Gun violence is a growing plague.
Isn’t it time for the fearless and sensible citizens of this country to tell our lawmakers and the National Rifle Association that we as a people refuse to find our national security in weapons that kill?
Isn’t it time for Americans who are not controlled by their fears to stand up in defiance to a gun lobby that consistently and irrationally argues against gun control?
Self defense is not only about individual rights but ensuring our collective sense of security.
More and more weapons mean less security.
Comments
Bullshit
Let's reequip the Army with pinwheels and confetti. I am sure that will solve any altercation.
The cold hard truth about any issue that is of polarizing nature is found between the extremes. If you take 10% Michael Moore, 10% Rush Limbaugh and use 80% of you own cognitive process, you will likely find reality.
The first gun laws (rights) were made without the NRA or Brady Campaign. The first restriction of manufacture was made during Prohibition. The first "permit laws" were made in the Jim Crow South and scared integrated North to prevent "armed Negros."
Britain banned guns altogether and has a mostly unarmed police force. Now the target for no violent yuppie Grizzly bear huggers is knives. Yes GB is outlawing KNIVES. Own a meat cleaver? You better be a Chef...
I am also sure you have a video of the conversation w/ freedom fighters. Or, Maybe you sat under a tree, God told you and then you had your brother write it down?
The usual drivel of the hippie driven generation. If we treat the symptoms, the problem will go away.
The usual drivel from another aging hippie of the Wow Man generation.
The basic premise of your article is that more gun control = less gun violence.
There is no need to speculate on what gun control will or won't do. We already have the facts about gun control and crime and you and the Brady Campaign and like individuals continue to ignore them.
State that have passed laws allowing their citizens to carry concealed handguns have consistently seen significant drops in their rate of violent crime. Not in one or two states but in dozens. States such as Massachusetts that have decreased the number of legitimate gun owners have seen significant increases.
Pass as much gun control legislation as you like, but crazy people are still going to kill innocent ones. It's just a matter of whether the innocent can fight back or not. The crazy person in this story was promptly shot by security guards before he could harm anyone else. Sometimes the person shooting back is a nondescript, ordinary citizen. Firearms in the hands of the responsible save lives.
Great article, thanks for writing it. You're spot-on with everything you say. And actually, a look at the most recent 2006 statistics on gun death per capita released by the CDC will show that of the top 30 states with the highest rates of gun death per capita, 29 of them have very permissive "shall-issue" policies for concealed carry. The states where citizens are least likely to be shot to death? NY, NY, RI, MA and HI. All states with very tough gun laws.
The comments about Britain below are also absolutely laughable. Britain has a homicide rate three times lower than the U.S. and a gun death rate 30 times lower than the U.S. The U.S., with its weak gun laws, has dramatically more gun violence than every other industrialized democracy on the face of the earth.
Like Robert, it's time for all Americans of conscience to stand up and take this country back from insurrectionist gun nuts who hold the same views as Timothy McVeigh.
The rampage at the museum was stopped by a violent act. If the other guards didn't have guns, many more people probably would have been killed.
Armed resistance does limit crime. It may not stop it completely, but it does limit it.
The murderer was a lunatic, and broke many laws before he even fired a shot. It was illegal for him to have a weapon (due to his felony history), it was illegal for him to carry the weapon in DC, and it was obviously illegal for him to discharge it. Imagine if the gun laws prevented a private security guard from having a gun. In this case, more restrictive laws would have led to more death.
I am glad that I have the same opportunity to defend my family as the guards did to defend the museum patrons.I don't live in fear, any more than the guards live in fear, but I am prepared to defend life if necessary.That is why I get angry when people want to take that ability away from me.
Oh please.
Gun Control kills, and that is well known.
Bob, check out this site: www.jpfo.org.
Fortunately, I think it is getting better in the US when it comes to firearms: People are buying them and ammunition it at a high rate, states are wanting to pass their own laws liberating themselves from federal regulations, people are turning to "Open Carry", and people are learning the dangers of "Gun-Free Zones".
-Brandon
This 'crazy' was a convicted felon. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, it has been a violation of Federal law for over 40 years for him to possess any firearm. Please learn the gun laws before calling for more of them. The armed citizen is a powerful deterrent to crime, not only for themselves but for everyone else. "When seconds count, the police are minutes away ..." even in urban areas. I have heard it said that "A conservative is a liberal who has been raped." If you have not yet been a victim of violent crime, perhaps this is not real to you. You may choose to be a coward for yourself if you wish. But when you and the Brady Campaign set out to disarm others, you conspire with thugs to make everyone easier to victimize. This is why those who own guns are angry at those who would steal their firearms from them under color of law. Gandhi risked his life for his beliefs. Yet gun banners want to risk MY life for their beliefs. Visit a gun store and a range. Learn of what you speak.
There is no "danger of gun-free zones." The gun-free zones that are left in this country (i.e., National Parks for 9 more months, college campuses, schools, etc.) have dramatically lower rates of homicide than the communities outside them. They are the safest places in our country - by far.
This gets directly to Bob's point about far right wing gun owners degrading Americans' collective security (i.e., public safety) with their paranoid, individual desire to be armed 24/7.
I am a Wiccan leftist and a firearms instructor. Tell your theory of "gun free zones" to SPO Jones and his grieving family, or the dead at Columbine or Virginia Tech. It is the height of hypocrisy to cite gun massacres in "murder-safe zones" as evidence of rising gun violence despite national statistics to the contrary, then claim that fewer statistical murders in these same zones show that gun prohibition works.
Public safety does not come from the police. It comes from the citizens, both collective and individual. It is our collective right to possess firearms that you claim to want to take. This neatly disposes of the pretense that Robert (and Barack for that matter) are merely trying to 'sensibly regulate' firearms ownership. You may also dispense with the stereotype of the rabid right-wing gun owner. Google 'Pink Pistols' and 'Democrats for the 2nd Amendment.'
To: Freedom4All
If you and I were in a "Gun Free Zone", at a school in Virginia for instance, and someone came in and started shooting students, would you rather I had my gun with me, or that I had left it at home?
In any given population, there are sheep and there are shepherds. Just because you aren't inclined to be a shepherd doesn't mean you should take away the staffs from those that are.
You can't stop or prevent crazy, you can't order crazy to stop with a law, whether it wields a gun, a bomb or a motor vehicle.
Crazy will have it's way with you.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Mahatma Gandhi
Autobiography
Translated from the Gujarati by Mahadev Desai.
Public Affairs Press, Washington, D.C. 1948.
Republication by Unabridged Dover, 1983. page 403.
"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have used his physical force which could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence."
Mohandas K. Gandhi
"Young India"
Aug. 11, 1920,
Quoted in Louis Fischer (editor) "The Essential Gandhi" pp. 156-57
Mr. Thompson,
I have Just One Question for you (blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx):
Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
Isn't it funny how people who are not legally able to own guns always end up shooting up places where guns are banned? A lot of good gun control does.
All it does is disarm the law abiding and prevent their self-defense against the killers.
thousands, literally thousands of state and federal firearms laws and your solution is:
more laws?
how many more? 10,000?
you cannot get rid of guns, it is not possible!
You are ignorant!
There is no "collective self-defense." Self-Defense is a personal thing. Police are not your personal body guard, and most of the time when you need self-defense you will have seconds to react and police will be minutes away and are not obligated to help you.
As per the limits of the second amendment, the amendment is already infringed. When this country was founded people owned battle rifles, which were often smoothbore muskets. Today's equivalent would be the assault rifle which is a personal arm issued to every soldier in every major nation. Given that the second amendment's purpose, these are arms that the people should be given unfettered access to.
"Gun lovers typically argue that when a perpetrator encounters an armed person--the perpetrator will either back down or get shot."
Strange - in this particular incident of a perpetrator attempting to kill many, many people, he *was* shot, by an armed person.
What were you trying to argue, again?
The right to a "collective sense of security" is a figment of the author's imagination. Rights, by their very nature, apply only to the individual.
DC has gun control and it did not stop this shooting. The shooter was stopped by another guard who had a gun. So the gun crime was stopped by a gun. So guns did stop the rampage.
The old man who shot the guard and others was shot by an armed man. Since CCW is not allowed in DC no CCW holder was allowed by your policies to stop this man. But he was stopped as gun activists claim by another armed man.
TO: Joe West your spot on. Us good citizens here are mostly responsible for are actions."crazy is what crazy does" gun,car,truck,club,knife,bomb whatever.
Ryan: Your pointing out the drop in violent crime rates in shall-issue states will not have any impact on people who make the "more gun control = less gun violence" argument. They _do not care_ about non-gun violence or non-gun violent crimes. To them, that data is totally irrelevant, and a distraction.
Robert, you have so very much to learn I am not sure where to begin.
Prove to us that banning something will completely eliminate it. Let's start with...say, illegal drugs! Knock, knock, Robert. Illegal drugs have been completely banned since before the day I was born and guess what Robert...I bet you they are available on the street corner right out in front of your liberal church.
Guns are not the problem Robert, guns are the solution. Violent felons, drug crazed criminals, thieves, societies scum, they are the problem.
It is my duty as a husband, a father, and citizen to protect others from harm. The single most effective tool in providing immediate protection to others and myself is a handgun.
Call 911 and prepare to die. Can you share a long list of examples of where those in harms way have called 911 and been saved? I can provide and endless list of fine Americans that have used a gun to defend their lives when no one else could.
Guns save lives.
I take the liberal approach. If you are afraid of guns, don't get one. Carry on.
Mr Thompson,
What would you fight for? Anything? Freedom of religion? Would you fight if I were to force (by law or mob) my beliefs on you? What would you fight for if it was taken from us? Are you on the side of liberty or not? Apologist for racist genocidal beliefs (read the history of the last century), or just looking for your missing unicorns?
Obviously, the majority of people compelled to comment on this article are pro-gun. So, even though this comment is a bit late, I feel compelled to speak for the other side. Given the tremendous gun violence in the world today, it amazes me that people think guns save more lives than they cost. What would a world without guns be? A world where people work together for the common good rather than fighting to preserve their property and count their life more important than the lives of others?
I live by the adage “live free or die.” People who lock themselves up in their homes, arm themselves, mistrust their neighbors, and believe violence is the only way to feel safe have already lost their freedom in my opinion. If I am walking down the street on a beautiful evening and someone chooses to take my life – so be it. At least I will have lived until I died.
To Mary:
I believe it is basic human nature for a person to "count their life as more important than others". At least in the case where the "other" is a violent predator.
Yes it would be great if "people work together for the common good", and for the most part we do. The guns are to protect us from those that 'don't' work toward the common good. If there were no guns, violent and selfish people wouldn't simply vanish as you predict. In fact, violent people generally have the advantage over non-violent people until society acts together to reverse that trend, usually by hiring a police force and setting up a justice system.
In a one-on-one situation, such as during a home invasion, the justice system has already failed as a deterent. The only chance a person has for defense is a threat of violence against the violent invader. In these types of cases a firearm is the best choice for defense.
Some humans are violent, gun bans will not change that. Sometimes only force stops force.
Mary writes, "people think guns save more lives than they cost" as if that is incorrect.
Guns are used defensively between 250,000 and 1,500,000 times per year in the US according to the best statistical studies from the US government and private researchers.
When the weak but moral folk cannot defend themselves effectively against the strong and immoral, what happens? The weak are abused.
Ghandi successfully freed India from British colonial rule through nonviolent means because the British, a generally moral people, were faced with the immorality of their colonial rule when the Indians asserted their individual rights to self rule. The British were also faced with the impossibility of controlling a vastly larger population in India without resorting to violence similar to the communists in Russia, Eastern Europe, and China, where 100 MILLION died. Pity those 100 MILLION did not have one gun each, and take one shot each at their murderers.
Gun owners don't agree with the Brady Campaign because they have no idea what they're talking about, spout lie after lie to the media, and paint gun owners as knuckle-dragging simpletons with no common sense. Sounds like a good reason to disagree to me. Check out 'Brady Campaign Lies' on YouTube and tell me if you think they're as reputable and benevolent as you portray them..
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!