El Paso and Dayton Mass Shootings - The Foolish Blame Game Continues

As I have demonstrated in my blogs throughout the years, social and political problems require remedy at the bottom of the issues. Cosmetic touches and surface modifications might help short-term but lead to further deterioration down the road. 

The two carnages at El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio - both of which took place within 24 hours last weekend - and the expected short-sighted and factually flawed statements in the wake of it make it a moral duty to speak up. 

 

 I outlined the notions surrounding private gun ownership, gun violence, and 2nd Amendment issues in the U.S. in several blog entries. For the sad occasion of the San Bernadino massacre of December 2, 2015, see https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html; on the Florida High School shooting of February 14, 2018, go to https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2018/03/amend-second-amendment.html. Aside from providing the normative criteria for private citizens' rights to bear arms in any open society, I addressed the particular challenges the U.S. faces concerning that issue. 

The opposing parties on the issue are, for the most part, mistaken and have been barking up the wrong tree, as I will show further down. To lay the proper foundation for what follows, a citation from the 2018 essay above 'Amend the Second Amendment: "A gun itself – like a knife or a truck or a rock – is an inanimate object that carries no moral value whatsoever in and of itself. Only the human being using it gives it meaning and bestows ethical significance upon it. While proper legislation concerning gun ownership serves as a deterrent and certainly helps to contain potential abuse and to prevent crime, it is ultimately the human volition that decides how guns – or knives or trucks or rocks for that matter – are used."

 

Only instilling adequate regard for human life through proper socialization and education of young people can help overcome the potential pathological triggers for mass-shootings and murder sprees. To name a few of these triggers: self-indulgence, apathetic egotism, seemingly uncontrollable hatred, self-hatred, and lack of desensitization as to the ease of killing shown in video games and Hollywood movies. 

The societal deficits as to this truly human dimension of the phenomenon are ubiquitous and virtually unmissable to the conscientious observer. Is this the inevitable price any society has to pay that praises lawlessness, celebrates moral relativism, surrenders the notions of truth and justice to the dictates of political correctness? The answer to this question seems to be as sure as the observation of the phenomenon is evident. 

 

We arrived at the point where the issue of gun control enters the picture. As explained in more detail (again https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html), legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership, within clearly prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the State's monopoly of force. Hence, both the monopoly of arms in conjunction with private gun ownership provides a synthesis for a nation's most efficient internal safety and security.

To overcome the confusion dominating the current gun debate in politics and society, an adaptation or revision of the Second Amendment stressing the law's self-defense component would appear conducive. Such clarification would also explain why no privately owned arms beyond handguns and weapons for immediate protection of one's safety and hunting purposes are needed. Dealing with the already purchased and privately owned assault weapons may require different measures, i.e., voluntary buyback or even confiscation of firearms in limited and justified circumstances of immediate endangerment. We know from the Florida incident that if law enforcement had followed through on that latter idea, the event most likely could have been prevented. 

About this aspect, the gun lobbyists and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are undoubtedly wrong. In contrast, the Democrats and many others who demand a ban on military-style assault weapons are right. It should never happen in an open society that somebody commits a mass murder-shooting with a legally acquired AK-47. Such kinds of weapons have nothing lost in private hands. However, how to grant interested people access to handling and shooting such weapons in the controlled environment of gun and shooting clubs I have explained in the essay 'Amend the Second Amendment' (see link above). I also explained why the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment no longer applies to the same degree it did at the time of the inception of the republic.

The currently ongoing blame game in U.S. domestic politics is ridiculous. Neither can President Trump's rhetoric nor existent gun-laws be blamed for the mass shootings. The dubious psychological motivations for individuals to carry out these senseless acts of mass violence owe to the extremely polarized atmosphere of the domestic debate on crucial issues (such as immigration, the rule of law, etc.) and the sheer impossibility of civilized dialogue in an environment of fake news and hateful anti-Trumpism. As violence occurs ever more frequently at demonstrations and political rallies and the bearers of opposing views get bashed and destroyed, genuinely unhinged individuals seem to carry it to the extremes of mass shootings on rare occasions. 

The fact that citizens can privately own military-style assault weapons legally in this country undoubtedly and positively contributes to the magnitude of those killings - although it doesn't cause them - and lays open a flaw in the interpretation and enforcement of the Second Amendment. 

This here approach should allow politicians and lawmakers to find common ground on this critical issue. I have to underscore again that a modification of constitutions and constitutional amendments is possible. Like any other law, the Second Amendment can either be amended or further specified by meaningful legislation. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, standard specifications should underscore the right to self-defense and relate the extent to which people may privately own certain types of guns.

Amend the 2nd Amendment!

As far as the right to bear arms for private citizens is concerned, the U.S. finds itself in an incredibly exclusive and delicate situation. 

When it added its Second Amendment to the Constitution in 1791, it did not explicitly mention the natural law-based individual right to self-defense. Still, it was somewhat tacitly hidden behind if not buried under the collective right to bear arms for the sake of ensuring the security of a free state. In the peculiar grammar of the time, the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Today, however, conditions have drastically changed. The United States is a developed and stable republic with the most powerful military force in the world. Its fifty States maintain their own National Guard as a quasi-modern type of militia. The legislation of Posse Comitatus regulates and limits the federal government's powers vis-à-vis the political state entities. It appears that the collective aspect of the Second Amendment, to secure a free state, is no longer critically relevant under the current political circumstances.

 

In our day and age, deterring a "tyrannical" government or repelling invasion does not appear to be serious challenges anymore. Not to mention that government nowadays avails over weaponry that cannot possibly be matched with any form of private gun ownership, whether or not the latter includes assault-type or any other military-type of rifles.

 

The apparent emphasis of the Second Amendment on the collective right to arm citizens for the sake of building a well-regulated militia resulted from the specific historical circumstances under which the founders established the new republic. In other words, and as far as private citizens' gun ownership was concerned, the timeless and enduring natural right to individual self-defense was combined with, if not overridden and superseded by the temporal necessity to incorporate and emphasize a militia clause. Given the empirical circumstances, the founding fathers considered the right to possess arms for the collective reason of securing liberty within a fledgling republic more critical than the explicit authorization for individual self-preservation. It most likely happened because the innate right to self-defense had been a perennial element of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law tradition for centuries and was considered a granted right. 

 

Consequently, and to overcome the confusion dominating the current gun debate in politics and society, an adaptation or revision of the Second Amendment stressing the individual self-defense component of the law would appear conducive. Such clarification also explains why private citizens do not need to own arms beyond handguns and weapons for immediate protection of one's safety and hunting purposes. Dealing with the already purchased and privately owned assault weapons may require different measures such as a voluntary buyback or even confiscation of firearms in limited and justified circumstances of immediate endangerment. Had law enforcement followed through on the latter aspect, the recent Florida shooting incident with 17 people killed would not have happened. However, proper socialization and education should provide the primary solutions to this challenge, and arguments to this effect follow at this essay's end.

 

As I explained in the wake of the San Bernadino massacre in my 2015 essay on Guns in Private Hands (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html): "Legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership within prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the monopoly of force [of the State]. Both the monopoly of arms and private gun ownership provides a synthesis for most effective internal safety and security of a nation."

 

I also made clear that due to the country's vastness and the remoteness of specific areas and settlements, the United States had to authorize private citizens to own firearms generously from the inception of its nationhood.

 

Against the backdrop of an adequate political philosophy for private gun ownership, as briefly outlined here and in the blog essay mentioned above, the current debate's ideological prejudices and misconceptions become evident.

 

Constitutions and constitutional amendments can be modified and adjusted so that lawmakers maintain the founders' spirit and the underlying ideas and principles under the ever-changing conditions of earthly existence. Like any other law, the Second Amendment can either be amended or further specified by meaningful legislation. Such legal specifications should underscore the right to self-defense and relate the extent to which private citizens may own certain types of guns. Guiding principles should be the need to defend one's own home, and safety and the legitimate hunting of wildlife is concerned.

 

As shown, to argue for the possession of military-style assault weapons by reference to the Second Amendment's militia clause can no longer be justified. However, since there is no conscription for military service in the U.S., and soldierly service in federal and national guard forces is voluntary, citizens interested in military assault weapons should be introduced to them in the regulated and safe environment of shooting clubs. This support could well be done in close civil-military cooperation and help foster the bond between military and civilian communities, which is crucial in open societies.

 

On the other hand, to argue for the disarmament of private citizens or even the Second Amendment's termination in light of recent school shooting incidences demonstrates nothing but ill-education and misjudgment regarding the importance of private gun ownership in a developed society. Those stances are neither philosophically nor politically tenable. And history confirms that the more totalitarian a nation becomes, the more the rights to self-defense and to bear arms become restricted.

 

A gun itself – like a knife or a truck or a rock – is an inanimate object that carries no moral value whatsoever in and of itself. Only the human being using it gives it meaning and bestows ethical significance upon it. While proper legislation concerning gun ownership serves as a deterrent and certainly helps to contain potential abuse and to prevent crime, it is ultimately the human volition that decides how guns – or knives or trucks or rocks, for that matter – are used.

 

In the end, it is the proper socialization of young people and the continued efforts to provide adequate education and character building that instill proper regard for human life. Responsible social formation helps to overcome self-indulgence and apathetic egotism and to withstand the desensitization of the ease of killing shown in video games and Hollywood movies.

 

A comprehensive and unbiased grasp of private gun ownership and the true meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment should be part of the mindset of an informed citizenry.

Guns in Private Hands - What to Do With the Second Amendment?

One major characteristic of our open societies, organized along with the principle of separation of powers, is the monopolization of force. In essence, this means that the individual citizen foregoes his/her natural right to use their physical strength to establish or upkeep and restore justice. Citizens transfer this responsibility to the enforcement authorities of the State, tasked to protect citizens and preserve and restore justice wherever and whenever required.

Every developed nation establishes a legal order that is also just as it allows for individual freedom and personal responsibility. It opens its monopoly of force toward its citizens only to a clearly defined extent. The State does this in acknowledgment of the fact that no monopoly of power can ever be absolute. Potential situations for individual citizens might occur. At least temporarily and specifically in the initial stages of threat and danger, the monopoly of force is not immediately present to protect and prevent harm from taking place. The possibility of such situations is why a (Nation-) States' monopoly of force restricts itself and allows for individual (self-) defense in clearly limited circumstances.

Legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership, within clearly prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the monopoly of force. The monopoly of arms and private gun ownership provides a synthesis for a nation's most efficient internal safety and security. The United States Constitution offers proper evidence for this claim to ensure the military forces' effectiveness was one objective the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind. The constitutional intent to provide for "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," together with the vastness of the country and the remoteness of specific areas and settlements provided for generous authorization as well as demand to have firearms in the hands of private citizens ever since the inception of the republic.
 
Beyond the U.S., history proves that the more totalitarian a society becomes, the more restricted is the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. There were no such laws, for instance, in the Soviet Union or Hitler Germany.

It appears that with the infiltration of radical elements of Islamism by migration as well as the potential threats arising from homegrown terrorism, the desire to own guns and enable themselves to self-defense is significantly increasing among citizens not only in the United States but also in Europe. The rising numbers of applicants for gun ownership on both sides of the Atlantic speak volumes and give testimony to that fact.

While the enforcement of existing gun legislation and every measure conceivable to prevent unjustified use of weapons from happening ought to be supported, individual politicians and political organizations' campaign to restrict gun ownership to the extent even of confiscating guns is misguided. It is an ideologically motivated move that blames radical terrorist violence on wrong causes and expects remedy from ill-conceived measures.

I've made clear throughout my blog entries that there will never be good practice without good theory. If decision-makers have no clue about the structures and intrinsic designs that underlie the complex challenges we face in our political life, we can never expect anything profound in their policies and approaches to solutions. Procedures will be a permanent process of trial and error and will always be reactive, constantly corrected after and by the fact, after making some new damaging experience. One good example of this is the current challenge of radical Islam in the wake of the San Bernadino massacre. The non-existent strategy against Islamism and radical exponents of it at home seem to exhaust itself in the tiring repetitive claim for stricter gun laws. It is interesting to observe how the unfolding of a painful reality pushes politicians toward more meaningful and proper policies, step by step leaving behind ideological and partisan prejudice. After the San Bernadino incident, everybody could watch Mr. Obama's embarrassing attempt to talk himself out of his misjudgment and to justify his doubling down on the failed policies that led to such catastrophes.

In the end, hopefully, he, as well as many others, will arrive at efficient policy arrangements an excellent theoretical foundation in human and political affairs would have suggested to them in the first place.