A Conversation with Natalia

NOTE:  I wrote this on June 2nd and am just now getting around to posting it.  The governor of Texas has since signed into law the right of gun license holders to carry concealed handguns on public college campuses. Some of the state's top universities opposed the bill.  So the law does allow for college presidents to designate "gun-free zones".  Our own state of North Carolina had already passed a law allowing guns to be taken into bars and public parks. 

If you are a gun rights advocate, please do not bother to leave a comment should you stumble upon this post.  I ask that because if you read what I have written you should see that I am sharing another way to look at an issue.  If that does not work for you, just remember I have the right to express my point of view.  

If you are not at all religious, just skip the last two paragraphs.  I left my opinion about some Christians and their view of gun rights last because it doesn't have to be part of the post.  I just wanted to express my views about that issue as well and thought it worked out okay by adding it at the end.    

I awoke this morning thinking of the tragedy of Sandy Hook Elementary. I assume that is because today is the first National Gun Violence Awareness Day.  I began to think about conversations between grandparents and grandchildren over the growing up years, conversations the grandparents of the little victims will never get to have.  The following is one I would like to have had with Natalia once she was able to understand abstract concepts.

Grandma, did you know today is the first National Gun Violence Awareness Day?

As a matter of fact, Sweetheart, I did.  But how do you know that?

I saw it on the internet when I was going to Facebook to see if Grandpa had posted anything new.  It made me remember how hard you cried when those little kids were shot at Sandy Hook Elementary.  That really upset you, didn’t it?

Oh my goodness, yes.  And it still does, Natalia honey. 

I had dinner at my friend Erica’s house the other day.  Her dad was complaining about people who want more laws for gun control.  He said that guns don’t kill, people do and that if gun control is increased it won’t prevent criminals from having guns.  That’s actually true, isn’t it, Grandma?

It is absolutely true.  However, from my perspective that is not how we view other laws.

What do you mean?

Well, I can give you a couple of examples.  Let’s start with background checks.  Before I could volunteer at the hospital they had to do a criminal background check on me, right?  The hospital needed to know that they were not putting anyone at risk of harm by allowing me to help work with very sick babies. They have that responsibility.  So I had to go through an application process that included checking on my background.  That provided valuable information about whether or not it was appropriate for me to be given the opportunity to volunteer. 

I have to say that I just do not see any difference when it comes to waiting periods and background checks for gun ownership.  Shouldn’t we expect that, as a society, we have the responsibility to attempt to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those who simply should not have them?  Perhaps I’m wrong, but honestly, sweetheart, I cannot think of another area in which we throw up our hands and say laws should not be in place because either those who do not obey the law anyway will just find a way around it or that it is taking away the rights of those who do obey the law.

Like what kinds of other laws?

We can’t get a driver’s license without proof of a certain level of competence to drive a vehicle and knowledge of road safety.  We have speed limits, road signs and lines on the road in order to protect drivers, passengers and pedestrians.  We have reduced speed limits in school areas.  We have laws against driving under the influence.  It is my understanding that all states have what is called a “dram shop law”.  That law says that a lawsuit can be brought against an establishment that serves alcoholic drinks if a patron of that restaurant or bar gets drunk and is in an accident.  Depending on the evidence, the establishment can be held accountable.  The danger to others of a driver impaired by alcohol is understood and there is an attempt to prevent harm and or loss.  

Another example is found in the pharmacy.  We realize that some medications can be addictive so we have laws that restrict their use.  The Drug Enforcement Administration regulations put responsibility on doctors for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled drugs.  But regulations also address the responsibilities of the pharmacist who fills the prescription.  The pharmacist is to be vigilant to verify that the medication is for a “legal medical purpose”.  Since it was discovered how to use decongestants like Sudafed to make hard core drugs, I am required to show ID and sign a form in order to purchase a bottle of Sudafed.  Law compels a pharmacist to ensure this process is followed.

Let’s use just these two examples and apply the logic that is the basis for argument against gun regulation.  Given the very true assertion that a person, not a gun, actually kills, then isn’t it also true that neither a car involved in an accident, nor a decongestant used other than according to directions are not at fault for killing or injuring?  Isn’t it true that the person driving a car or the one who is making hard core drugs must accept responsibility?  How often, in reality, honey, is a person NOT going to be involved?  Perhaps in very infrequent occurrences like being hit by lightning.  So, how is it that stating such a very obvious, widespread truth is considered a valid defense against some gun regulation?  Why is it not the basis on which decisions are made regarding legislation for or against just about everything else? 

Of course, the response to that question, Natalia honey, is going to be that cars and Sudafed are not protected by the Second Amendment.  Like we’ve said, true.  However, the fact that we have had additional amendments to our Constitution over time certainly indicates how dynamic society is.   We’ve had to address very major issues such as slavery, the right to vote, succession to the Presidency, etc.  We have had to view our Constitution as a dynamic document, one to assure freedoms and protect rights as society changes and injustices and unaddressed issues have been identified.  Why do we not see that accepting the changes in “arms” since the addition of the Second Amendment and responding accordingly does not have to mean the right is taken away?  Why shouldn’t we recognize the peril to everyone when a gun is sold to anyone without an attempt to determine how suitable that person is to possess a firearm?  If we expected that, how would we be treating the person selling the gun any differently than we treat the bartender, the doctor and the pharmacist?   How would that be taking anyone’s Second Amendment right away?

So laws would treat different dangers to all of us the same way, right?  That seems fair.  That wouldn’t take away the right of people like Erica’s dad to have his gun, would it?   Well, guns.  He has a couple. 

No, I don’t think it would. 

So, Grandma, why aren’t people like Erica’s dad okay with having background checks required for anyone who wants to buy a gun, no matter where the gun is being sold?  Wouldn’t that be good for them, all the people who would have no problem getting a gun even after they are investigated?  Wouldn’t that be something they should want too, to at least not make it easier for criminals to get guns?

That makes sense to me. 

And Grandma, what about guns that can shoot a lot of bullets really fast? 

What about them? 

I understand all about the Second Amendment and all that.  But when the Constitution was written they didn’t know how powerful guns would get.  Just like you, I’m not saying that people have to give up their right to their guns.  I’m just wondering why they insist on having the kind of gun that was used to shoot all those little kids at school?  If there hadn’t been that type of gun for sale in the stores or at shows, maybe not so many kids would have been killed. Isn’t that something else that would be good for all of us, especially if they don’t make people go through background checks?  The criminals or the poor people that are sick and need help at least wouldn’t be able to harm or kill as many people at one time.  Wouldn’t that be another way we could compromise?  So Erica’s dad could still have every right to guns, he just wouldn’t be able to have one like armies use.  But our army would have them, so really I don’t think he would be able to say he needs that kind.  And if they aren’t sold he would be on an equal ground with everybody else who has a gun. 

Natalia, sweetheart, some people really believe that they have to protect themselves against the army and the government.  So for them, your solution would be the last thing they would agree to. 

But Grandma!  Really?!  Do they think they could right now win a fight with the army?  They don’t have drones, rocket missiles and tanks.  No way could they protect themselves against that stuff.

What you say makes a lot of sense.  I don’t know if they would consider your thoughts, though.  But tell me what would be done with all the high powered guns on the market now? 

Well, I can think of something. 

.

Like what?

No one who already has any of those kinds of guns would have to give them up.  That’s too complicated and everyone would just argue and not agree anyway.  They could keep them.  But no one could buy anymore.  Instead, the army would buy them.  The army could also buy those that are in warehouses or are just now being manufactured.   No one would lose money that way.  That’s a solution.

Well, any change has to start somewhere.  That sounds like a good beginning and a fair one.  Can you think of any reason why that wouldn’t go over?

Maybe the gun manufacturers make more money on those guns?  I don’t know, but wouldn’t they cost more than regular guns?  So, if they do, companies who make the guns wouldn’t like that idea, would they?

I certainly doubt it, sweetheart.

I’m only one person.  And I’m just a kid.  Maybe if a lot of people tried to think of ideas together we could come up with something. 

But, there is one other thing that I REALLY, REALLY don’t understand, Grandma.  You know how we Christians talk about Jesus on the Cross?  I’ve been thinking about it.  Didn’t Jesus have every right to get down and not die?  If He chose not to; if He was willing to give up His life, why do so many grown-ups who are Christians talk so much about their rights to have guns, whatever kind they want and as many as they want?  We’re supposed to be like Him and love others more than we love ourselves.  So why won’t they give up even just a little?   Wouldn’t they want to see people be willing to do at least something to try and make little kids safer at school if it were their kids or grandchildren who died?  Wouldn’t that be a loving, unselfish thing to do?  I just don’t understand.

I’m afraid, Natalia honey, that I don’t understand either.  Not at all.