At The Level Of A Gun

I recently stated that the true enemy of hatred is public discourse. I stand by that, but when civility takes a back seat to impassioned attacks on others, the forum of discussion becomes a breeding ground for contempt and violence. Well intentioned debate walks a fine line between productive compromise and useless mudslinging, and if we ignore the former and cross over to the latter the problems we set out to solve only intensify.

It is at this point that I am obligated to address the recent tragedy in Tuscon. While I do not believe that the incendiary rhetoric of Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle inspired the murder of six people and attempted assassination of Representative Giffords, calling for "second amendment solutions" to problems in government certainly does not carry the connotation of peaceful cooperation and bipartisan compromise. There have been an overwhelming number of pieces in the media recently calling for an end to hostile speech in politics and on the home front, but they all simply repeat each other. Each one ends with the prediction that such politesse is only temporary, and sooner or later we will revert to the old tone of hostility.

I'm not advocating changing the tone of the debate. As much as I oppose hate speech on principle, it's important that it plays a role in society precisely so we can understand how futile it is to employ it. While a well penned essay can certainly sway opinions and inspire acts of both good and violence, the place where we must truly focus our energy is in cutting off the resources that enable people to carry out such acts of carnage. There is absolutely no credible reason to own an assault rifle in the United States, except perhaps for investment purposes. The threat of an oppressive government in the United States requiring deposition by armed insurrection is not only remote, but were such an instance to occur the fact that people believe they could go toe to toe with the world's only military super power armed with an assault rifle and high capacity magazines is laughable.

Even those who advocate that gun ownership is effective for personal and home defense are woefully mistaken. More people are killed or injured by their own gowns than are those against whom they would intend to use them. In fact, gun violence in the 20th century claimed more lives than World Wars I, II, the Korean War, The Vietnam War and the Gulf War combined. Yet for some inexplicable reason the NRA and Congress seem to have it in their heads (or rather their pockets) that more people owning lethal weapons makes the country a safer place. I have absolutely no idea how this is logical. I have never heard of an instance in my lifetime where a deranged gunman was stopped from committing murder by an armed civilian. Had I heard such a story, my immediate reaction would have been relief that such a person was stopped quickly followed by terror that there seems to be a large number of people with concealed weapons walking the streets. Even a man located near the scene of Representative Giffords' assassination carrying a concealed weapon admitted to having almost shot an innocent bystander after he tackled the alleged shooter to the ground, mistaking him for the perpetrator rather than the victim.

If we want to make this country a safer place, the answer is not to tone down the volume. Nobody every won a battle by sitting quietly. An argument certainly, but silence in the heat of conflict is tantamount to acceptance of defeat. Disabling the systems that enable true terror is the only foolproof way to ensure that we can resume the work of dismantling hatred and bigotry without the looming threat of violent solutions formed at the level of a gun.