I hope the recent shootings in Tucson, Ariz. will generate a groundswell
of support for increased restrictions on the use of assault weapons in the
United States, where I was born.
While I could easily go along with a complete ban of all guns in the
country, I know politically that will never happen. Too many argue law-abiding
citizens have the right to own a gun. While I do not agree with this viewpoint,
I respect the position. If people want to use guns for sport or believe
they must carry a weapon for their protection or their families, I get that.
What I don’t get is the opposition to placing reasonable limits on
easy access to guns — specifically automatic weapons. No matter where
someone falls on the political spectrum surely we can find common ground in
keeping guns and automatic weapons out of the hands of the mentally
ill. The suspected shooter in Tucson was kicked out of college and needed a
mental health clearance to get back in. Yet, he can go to a Sportsman
Warehouse and buy a semi-automatic Glock-19 handgun with ease.
Does the right of an American to own a gun supersede the right to an
education? No. But a background check system full of loopholes and an
ineffective database have made access to dangerous weapons all too easy for the
mentally ill.
To join the U.S. army an applicant needs to go through an exhaustive process
that the Tucson killer did not pass. I would like a similar process that
includes a condition of mental health, before any civilian is cleared to carry
any assault weapon. Of course, people may question any civilian’s sanity who
wants to carry an Uzi. In all seriousness, rather than focusing on banning guns
we need to strengthen the requirements of ownership.
Gun control measures have been muted by the gun lobby. It opposes any
restrictions that interfere with this right to bear arms. Democracies, however,
place restrictions on behaviour all the time for the safety and wellbeing
of society. Narcotic medications are a perfect example where we have laws in
place to restrict the use of a potentially dangerous product. And we don’t hand
out driver’s licences to those who pass a background check – we test for
competence.
I see the pro-gun crowd and the pro-pot activists as similar camps.
While they probably would not have each other as Facebook friends, they share
very similar libertarian beliefs. Both want the state to leave them
alone and not interfere with what they believe are their inalienable
right to their sacred thing. It’s the role of the moderate and rationale
majority to keep these two groups in check. In the U.S., one has to wonder -
where are those people who pursue efforts for the common good?
I’ve heard the argument that increased gun control laws won't have any impact
because guns are readily available on the street. That doesn’t
mean society should allow easy, legal access to a dangerous product.
Should it should be perfectly legal to sell semi-automatic weapons to anyone
walking off the street?
In certain recent, mass, fatal, U.S. shooting cases such as that on the
Virginia Tech campus, the killers obtained their guns and ammo at legitimate
retail outlets.
No matter what restrictions are placed on obtaining weapons people can never
be completely safe from unbalanced individuals bent on killing their fellow man.
But few things bring greater carnage than a crazed killer with an
automatic weapon spraying rounds of ammo.
I love my country of birth. But its gun culture and a lack of political will
to enact common sense regulation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally
ill undermine its standing in the eyes of the world.
It also makes me very glad I have dual citizenship and can call Canada my
home.
