In the last few days I have received many emails and letters
concerning my blog about the ideas the Dallas policemen gave for curbing gun
violence. I expect some more responses to come in soon. But to date, there
seems to be a real split about the first item suggested, which was the Capital
Offense being assigned federally to anyone who uses a gun in the commission of
a crime. I would say right now it is a
60-40 split pro.
But I found something most interesting when doing a brief
and very un-scientific analysis of the numbers. While the majority of those
opposed to the death penalty for the use of a gun in a crime came from the left
and those against Capital Punishment to begin with, a major concern has also
come from very conservative gun owners.
I am not sure what the reason behind this is other than some have quoted
the 8th Amendment as being their rationale. (For those of you who
have not looked at the Constitution since junior civics class in high school,
the 8th Amendment is about the limits on Cruel and Unusual
punishment for a crime.)
The argument they make is that to take a life for merely
carrying a gun into a hold up or to point it at an officer during a domestic
violence case, is a bit harsh. Too harsh for their sensitivities to take. Yet,
most of these people would howl to the moon if you even threatened to remove their
weapons from them. Can they have it both ways? Is there a happy medium ground?
There are some who feel that the cruel and unusual
punishment does not apply here, because we have a right to protect ourselves as
a whole from those who would destroy the fabric which stretches so precariously
thin across our society. Some feel gun violence is terrorism. Others feel that
Capital Punishment is within itself a deterrent to escalating gun violence. But
those opposed believe that it might infringe on more civil liberties.
I find this hard to swallow.
I look at an elementary school with twenty dead kids and I can’t help
but think that the shooter should be put down. And yesterday the news from
Chicago that the young girl who sang at the presidential Inauguration was
gunned down. My heart brakes. Just as it did while I watched former
Congresswoman Gifford testify on gun control yesterday.
It all raises the questions of how much will American be
willing to take before they rise up and outlaw guns? I hope that is not the case. I know many feel that my tirades of recent
sound as if I do not support the 2nd Amendment. Not true, While I do
believe we have misconstrued it over the years and currently do not recognize
its historical perspective, I believe it does guarantee the right of American
citizens to have guns.(The Amendment does not specify what type of guns, now
how much ammunition, but the right to bare arms is quite clear in its
language.)
So we have a crossroads. What does it take to keep our guns
and yet protect our society?
Background checks don’t seem to work. Gun shows and
individuals get around the law everyday. So if we take the NRA’s stance that
guns don’t kill people, people do…and we change it ever so slightly to read…
guns don’t kill people, people with guns do…then we might in deed have an
answer.
If you walk into a pharmacy and hold a gun to the
pharmacist’s head to get him to give you oxycodone or your drug of choice, you
are in fact saying, ‘I will kill you unless you do what I say.” Same is true if you hold a gun on a bank
teller or a convenience store clerk or on your own spouse in a moment of rage. That
is the act of terror the gun brings to a crime. It is the act of shifting the
balance of power in the situation. That, in my mind is attempted and
premeditated murder. Whether you pull a trigger or not, your intentions were to
use that force to leverage your way in a crime.
I say that deserves Capital Punishment.
Why?
Because if we apply this standard to every crime where a gun
is used, soon people will be fearing for their lives when using a gun for a
criminal act. Mr. Tough guy who waves a gun around to increase his manhood
during a crime and threatens to ‘put a cap into someone who gets into his way’,
is on the road to being toast. No questions asked. Society will rid itself of
him and his violence. Permanently. And his passing will be a symbol to others
not to follow in his footsteps. With this process, violent acts of crime with a
gun can be reduced in huge numbers, if not eliminated all together. (It will
also help us clean out the gene pool of those whose nature is to inflict
violence on neighbors.)
This process probably would not solve the acts of a crazy
person who is mentally deranged and driven to mass killings. We need more help
on this. But the vast majority of
deaths, which come in ones and twos and are the result of crimes of the moment,
shootings on the street corners and in the alleys of our urban jungles will
come to an end. Want to hold up a liquor store? Better think twice about
carrying a gun in with you. The goodnight juice is waiting on you.
But again, not everyone agrees with me…or with this radical
idea. I don’t expect you to. But I would like to hear from you about your ideas
on this.
How do we stop gun violence?
No comments:
Post a Comment