a href=”https://alittlemoreconversationplease.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/gunmap420.gif”>
As you may know, the Supreme Court recently overturned Chicago’s long time ban on handguns. In response, the Chicago City Council reformed its gun control laws and passed the following ordinances:
•Firearm sales will be banned in the city.
•Gun training totaling four hours in a classroom and an hour on a firing range will be required before getting a permit. But firing ranges are banned, so training must be completed outside Chicago.
•To transport a gun, it will have to be “broken down,” not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case.
•Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling. It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on the front porch or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.
Ok, so does anyone have a problem with the above ordinances? Honestly, it sounds reasonable to me. I’m not someone who wants to take away a person’s right to own a gun. I also though am not in favor of radical gun laws like conceal and carry. If there’s a motif in any of my blogs, it’s this: I want to fight for the rights of people, and the ability to own a gun is also a right. With that said, we just need common sense with guns. I worry about children and teenagers having access to guns, I worry about too easy of sales of guns, and I certainly worry about strangers on the street carrying a gun.
In my household, I have only two guns: my left and my right arm, lol. Of course, it helps that I’m a fourth degree black belt in karate, and I do not worry about my safety inside my home. I understand others may worry and would like access to a gun if someone were to break into their house. Ok, fine. Just keep it out of the reach of children and be intelligent enough to understand gun safety. And for those of you who do not want a gun: you do not have to get one. But that doesn’t mean you have the right to tell others they cannot have a gun. If you don’t want one, don’t get one. It’s that simple.
The issue of guns has always triggered a much deeper issue for me—the issue of violence. Gun control advocates and protestors constantly throw out statistics about crime, but when it comes down to it, you can find a statistic that supports either side of the argument. Having guns or not having guns will not significantly reduce crime until we get to the root of the problem, and I argue the root of the problem is a sociological/psychological problem with fear and violence.
Take a look at other countries for proof of evidence about a correlation between guns and violence. On one hand, Japan has perhaps the lowest amount of guns in the world. The police officers do not even carry guns. And Japan also has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. On the other hand, look at Canada. Canada is a nation full of hunters who have lots and lots of guns. But they also have a very low crime rate. Conclusion= it’s not all about guns, people.
In the United States, I would argue that we have an obsession with violence. Very few people follow a “turn the other cheek philosophy” (ironically, those who take the Bible literally are also more likely to support the death penalty, war, and guns… not a very “turn the other cheek” kind of people in reality). Let’s look at our culture. If a child is bullied, dad teaches the child to fight back and stand up for himself. If someone attacks the U.S., people cry for revenge. We barely even flinch when we hear of crime on the news or a shooting in our city.
We lack respect for human life. But with my above examples, it’s a double edge sword. When it comes to bullying, we need professionals in our schools to mitigate bullying before it occurs. More importantly, we need responsible parents who teach children to value human life. But if my child is bullied, I would want him to fight for himself. But fighting is not enough—we must understand and work to solve the core of the problem.
The same goes for war. Yes, if we are attacked, we must stand up for ourselves. But fighting is not enough. We must work to understand different cultures and understand why we were attacked. Certainly we could find some common ground only if we tried harder.
Additionally, Americans seem to live in constant fear. Friends of mine have (hopefully sarcastically) posted comments about visiting the city and hoping they don’t get shot. My own students, who attend a rural school, have similarly joked during field trips. When driving downtown one day, I had a student seriously ask me, “What are our chances of getting shot?”
It’s that kind of constant fear that drives people to buy guns. And when you have a neighborhood living in fear and dozens of households with guns, it’s likely one of those guns will be abused. The abuse of the gun—be it stolen, unintentionally fired, etc—enhances our fear. I remember one time as a teenager I was late coming home, so I tried to sneak in quietly and made too much noise getting back in the house. My father, who was half asleep, charged at me with his handgun aimed at my head. It took a few yells for him to realize it was me. But my father makes a good example of someone living in fear, and consequently, someone who should not own a gun.
So what do we do? Getting rid of guns vs. more guns is an argument that distracts us from the real problem. The real problem is how to shape our culture and our children to have a respect for all of life and how to reduce the fear in which people live. It starts at home. Children learn fear and respect (or a lack thereof) from their parents. The Japanese culture, a world with few guns and little crime, teaches respect, loyalty, and obedience in unparalleled ways. Perhaps it comes down to collectivistic versus individualistic values. In Japan, children are taught that they are a member of a family, a neighborhood, a culture, and that their behavior is not just a reflection of self but a reflection of the family and the country. Japanese youth, who of course are not perfect and still have problems albeit fewer it seems than American youth, develop a greater sense of responsibility for all of their culture. On the contrary, American youth are taught to be more individualistic. We live in a competitive world, we are taught to be unique to get ahead, we are told we are extra special (you are the “best” child in the world; so much better than so & so’s child). We are given egos and a competitive edge that makes too many people look out for themselves. Not all of it is bad—competition and creativity of course can be very healthy. But I’m wondering if we cannot strive for more of a balance. Encourage the creativity and competition within a frame of greater respect and responsibility for all.
It’s about more than parents too of course. It’s about the media, whose stories tend to exacerbate fear.
I obviously do not have all the answers. I’m just thinking about the situation and hoping to encourage others to think about our situation as well. In short, I want to emphasize the following points:
1. Let’s not argue about getting rid of all guns. Gun ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment, and thus gun rights are rights that must be protected.
2. Let’s not argue for more guns either. In a culture obsessed with violence and fear, more guns are definitely not the answer.
3. Let’s instead focus on the sociology and psychology of violence and fear and find ways to improve respect of life for all people.
4. Let’s find ways to help parents, schools, and society promote these values. Volunteer at a school or community group like Big Brothers/Big Sisters. We have to take responsibility for each other. If we leave it up to lawmakers, you’ll either have more guns or fewer guns. Get involved yourself and teach these values. If we have stronger values for life, guns won’t matter.
Please subscribe to this blog by clicking “sign me up” on the upper left corner of the page.
A little more conversation, please 
It’s an interesting list of ordinances, which seem to basically enforce the recently overturned law. If you can’t just ban them all the way, then you can certainly make it damn near impossible for someone to have one in the first place. I have mixed feelings on this issue:
First, I tend to agree with the stand-up for yourself notion of bullying. I don’t think it’s as simple as “hit the other kid,” but getting an adult as a kid or allowing the law to enable you to live as you please as an adult are reasonable ways to keep the problem under control — not that they always work, but it’s a start in the right direction. The Japanese version of this is actually to enforce hyper-conformity most of the time — not that everyone believes it, but it’s kind of the default method employed most often over time. This means that you bring in both kids, bully and bull-ee, and you tell the bully to cut it out (this is horrible, why would you do this to your classmate, etc.) and tell the kid being bullied that he/she needs to stop doing whatever it is that is getting him/her bullied. Also I know that this happens based on firsthand accounts, but as to the pervasiveness of it throughout Japan, I can’t say (not like I did a study or anything).
Second, I see martial arts as a means of approaching fighting and hand-to-hand combat. It is additionally, in many cases I think, a lifestyle choice. The pursuit of perfection in this area takes on the meaning of personal perfection and creates a harmony that enhances the life of the trainee (in the most poetic, traditional sense) — again, this is kind of the idyllic version, not completely true but it’s a sort of feeling that follows the activity. The more combative aspects of this lifestyle involve accepting the world as it is and being prepared for that world. If you’re a kendo master, and you pursue perfection in the sword for your life, yet you understand yourself to be a real warrior/fighter, it does no good to deny the existence of guns. In Japan this is less of a deal as guns are essentially unobtainable outside of being a cop or inside being a yakuza of some sort (and even the criminals tend to not have them). In America however, I don’t think it behooves a fighter — someone who consistently seeks to perfect his/her hand-to-hand skills — to ignore the world of guns, esp. handguns. You can hate them all you want and say they aren’t part of the fold, but pretending that hands or pre-gunpowder era weapons are all there is to it is to misrepresent the world we live in, today. Wishing they weren’t doesn’t make it so. I like the idea of your points, and improving our world through education and making sure people know that there is safety to be found in our communities — I’m not supporting paranoia here. However, as many criminals and crimes that are prevented, and as strict as we make it to own a gun, there’s little denying that bad guys will get them, and knowing how to deal with them is as essential as being able to deal with a switchblade — both being able to utilize and defend against.
It is indeed a complicated issue. What gun crime we have here in Canada is almost always pistols (we have a lot of hunting rifles and shotguns because we have a rather large and sometimes dangerous backyard). And more often than not the pistols used in crime have been smuggled in from the US. So your problem is also a problem here, and one that cannot be dealt with by more ownership laws and regulations and registries.
What might be effective is a mandatory prison sentence for anyone convicted of a crime that includes a gun (and for you military people, I know a ‘gun’ has wheels but I’m using it as a short form). This idea has been floated a few times but tends to die with a government when an election is called. (For those of you unfamiliar with a constitutional monarchy, all legislation belongs to a government until it passes all three readings in both upper houses, is signed by the Governor General, and only then becomes law. Legislation that is still being worked on when a government falls dies with it.)
As for the fear factor, I think this attitude plays a central role in violence but not so much here in typical gun crime where one drug dealing gang member shoots another drug dealing gang member and almost as often as not some completely innocent civilian caught between the two potential murderers. Shoot ’em both by firing squad as far as I’m concerned and the world will be just a little safer for the rest of us.
I think the US in particular has a harder road than most to travel to find some larger sense of trust in one’s neighbours. The interpretation of the 2nd to mean gun ownership to be a fundamental right is just bizarre to any one who can comprehend the written word. Hundreds of millions of handguns and easy access makes guns the easy and immediate solution to conflict resolution. The notion of a cultural melting pot means that anyone who wishes to identify with some other cultural reality is seen to be anti-American… as if one can only own a single culture. The role of money rather than merit as an indicator of worth and value is another significant problem: one can be ‘robbed’ of material wealth and a gun can facilitate this acquisition strategy. The notion of the ‘rugged individual’ is hardly conducive to understanding how everyone is a part of something larger, growing a sense of community, and so on. Since the Apollo program, Americans rarely come together except to either fiercely compete with each other or go to war. Without some strong sense of “We’re all in this together,” it is very difficult to effectively address the almost innate sense of mistrust and fear towards, and need to compete with, one’s neighbours. Without first addressing the root environment in which trust is undermined, and without finding an appropriate venue to re-establish trust as the default setting, I think the US will continue to devolve into a place of more gates, more police, more jails, more street violence.
That seems a little exaggerated. I know there are bad spots in the US, but it does make it seem as though Americans don’t have communities of friends or communities at all. To assume the US is headed to hell in a handbag I think is a bit of a slippery slope argument with perhaps some evidence, but still I think there would have to be some further degradation to reach the point at which these sentiments become the starting point of a more unpleasant evolution.
I do agree that I think the 2nd amendment is misconstrued. Its time in history and its purpose are both used to justify current gun ownership status, while the initial reason it was implemented seems woefully overlooked. The Constitution has a historical context that, due to political pandering, is rarely observed when the document is interpreted for legal purposes.