One Small Voice: Apply common sense to gun rights

by Lynn Mandaville

Many Second Amendment supporters and NRA members like to say that laws regulating guns in America are a waste of time and a threat to our rights as Americans. Bad guys will always find a way to get hold of guns if they want them badly enough.

Many of these same people say we need a southern border wall to keep out illegal immigrants.

But wouldn’t the same theory apply here, as it does to the gun control issue Bad guys will find a way into our country if they want it badly enough.

So why doesn’t the same logic apply in these separate situations?  

If the bad operators will always find a way to circumvent the law, why do we have laws in the first place? If our right to bear arms is absolute, perhaps we should discontinue all efforts to regulate the sales and registrations of everything that fires a bullet.

If the bad Mexicans/Central Americans will always find a way to breach our border, why bother to regulate who comes over that border, anywhere at any time, or by any means?

The answer comes back, as it always should and always does, that we have laws and regulations to avoid chaos in society. Without laws we cannot prosecute those who are violators. We cannot inflict fair and consistent consequences on those found guilty of violations. Just like with issuing drivers licenses and automobile registrations, we cannot impose some modicum of order where public safety is concerned unless qualifiers exist.

Just as there are those who obtain guns illegally and commit crimes with them, there are people who drive illegally in stolen cars and commit crimes with them. Common sense has spurred society to impose regulations on driving and owning cars. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, somehow common sense flies out the window.

It’s OK to require a learner’s permit as a prerequisite for driving a car. And it’s OK for states to require that all vehicles be registered and insured so that they can be tracked lawfully in case they are stolen or are used for nefarious purposes.

Not so with firearms. Almost anyone can buy a gun, with or without sanctioned training or criminal/psychological screening, by circumventing existing laws, and that weapon can exist and be owned by seeking out loopholes, and without being entered into a modern, digitized, nationwide database like that of state DMVs.

We haven’t had a horrific school shooting lately, not since Parkland, Fla. But most recently we have had the mass murder of journalists with a shotgun in Annapolis, Md., and, in Arizona, the murder of a man by his wheelchair confined mother, and these two events have prompted me to revisit my convictions about gun control.   

The issue isn’t just high-powered weapons. It is also about how American culture has morphed during its two hundred-plus years as a nation.

Guns have changed drastically in that time due to improved science and technology. People have also changed due to the same influences. People live longer, but not necessarily better. Human life is prolonged, often for its own sake rather than for its quality. Therefore, there are people alive with serious mental and physical afflictions that make it difficult to cope with the challenges of modern existence.

Some people live with severe physical limitations, some short-term and some long-term (like an invasive cancer or a debilitating injury), that cause mental instability or acute depression. Some people live much longer than used to be considered the norm, thus making them more susceptible to dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease or other mental maladies.  

We are becoming more and more aware lately of the “other” tragedies that occur with guns than just the all-too-common school shooting.

In Arizona, recently, a man was murdered by his 90-something year old, wheelchair bound mother. She had ready access to the firearms her now-deceased husband used to own. As she became less mentally stable, and as she began to express overt thoughts about killing her son, that son requested that local police confiscate her weapons. He believed she posed a threat to him, specifically, but also to others around her. He was told it could not be done without violating his mother’s Second Amendment rights. Now he is dead by her hand with one of those guns.

Because this story is in our local news right now, I have learned about “red flag” laws that either do exist or are being considered in states throughout the country. These laws are being routinely challenged or voted down in spite of their common sense application to public safety.

I understand the sanctity of constitutional amendments. The First Amendment is the one for which I would go to the mattresses. And when I take the time to consider my passion for it, I can actually understand the passion others have for the Second Amendment.

Common sense has allowed us to accept certain exceptions to the First Amendment. We all know them well. You may not shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. You may not engage in hate speech. You may not slander other people.

Common sense has not caught up with the ways in which American humans have changed in relationship with the Second Amendment.

Americans seem to be more susceptible than ever before to act on their mental health failings. Depressed people kill themselves in ever-increasing numbers. Angry people kill their former co-workers, or people they incorrectly perceive have wronged them. Elderly people with dementia kill their relatives or neighbors. Racists, bigots, and domestic partners kill each other out of fear or jealousy or ignorance.

Yet we have not made allowances for dangerous weapons to be removed, even temporarily, from the reach of those at risk of misusing them.

Injuries and deaths caused by the irresponsible use of firearms are tragic, but they are not unavoidable.

Reasonable people ought to be able to come together to recognize that we can reduce the odds of tragedy through reasonable guidelines and procedures, just as we do with the multiple-ton “weapons” we drive out of our driveways every single day.

I don’t oppose guns or the Second Amendment. I do oppose the idea that human beings cannot diminish their odds of being maimed or killed with a gun without compromising their right to own a gun.

While things are relatively quiet now, between abominable tragedies, maybe now would be the time for sane heads come together to help a precious constitutional amendment catch up to its 21st century citizens?