Gun Culture, Violent Culture, and Political Correctness

              Bob Costas was excoriated for his Sunday Night Football halftime commentary stating that we had a “gun culture” in America that needed to be addressed. Many people took his comments to be a call for gun control and took exception to his comments based on the 2^nd Amendment of our Constitution. I believe that Bob Costas has been exonerated. Following the Newtown, Connecticut massacre of twenty children, most Americans now believe that we have an unacceptable gun culture.

The 2^nd Amendment is very clear that its purpose is to keep the populace armed so that our nation never has a government that morphs into a dictatorship. Its purpose is to prevent tyranny. However, when most people talk about their right to “bear arms” it is usually based on their right to hunt, or to protect themselves from other civilians. Rarely do you hear people state that they need guns to prevent tyranny (although there are some whacko survivalists that do believe in this possibility). However, if every American citizen owned automatic assault riffles there would still be no chance for the populace militia to stop the American military from completing a coup de dat (if they so desired). Our military not only has assault riffles, it has tanks, armored personnel carriers, gun ship helicopters, jet fighters, missiles, nuclear weapons, drones, and an organized command and control structure. The 2^nd Amendment was practical and useful when it was written but it can no longer prevent tyranny. With that said, I support the 2^nd Amendment for the purpose of civilians protecting themselves from other civilians.

The good news is, we are a very open society and our soldiers are not only a part of the military, they are a part of our open society. Therefore, we have no need to worry about our military supporting a dictatorship.

In the light of Newtown, Connecticut, we must reevaluate many aspects of our society. We not only have a gun culture, we have a violent culture, and we have an overly political correct culture. Our political correctness prevents people from stating when they see something that would not have been acceptable only forty years ago. Political correctness has been good in some areas. It is good that we do no longer expect a woman to aspire to the traditional role of housewife (it’s also good that we admire those that do). It is also good that we do not shame people for having a mental illness. However, it is not okay to look the other way when our entertainment industry glorifies killing and even teaches our children how to kill through video games.

When the Supreme Court ruled on pornography they stated that they could not define pornography, but they knew it when they saw it. Somewhere along the way (through political correctness) we lost the ability to see pornography. Pornography does not have to be sexual in nature. The glorification of violence in ‘art” is a form of pornography.  We may not be able to define it, but we know it when we see it (or hear it as in the case of hip-hop music).

Here is a political correctness issue to ponder: If gangster-hip-hop music was initiated and proliferated by middle-class white people, would it have been considered acceptable? Does the fact that (at least in its infancy) it was dominated by African Americans have anything to do with why it was accepted? The unfortunate answer is yes. It is yes because African Americans see much more violence than non-African Americans and it was viewed as artists reflecting the life they experience. But should we allow the portrayal of violence to be glorified? Why is this accepted? The rhythm of the music is art. That art should be used in an uplifting manner to better people's lives (and some of it does) - not in a manner that encourages more violence.

During World War II, our military determined that only 20% of our soldiers could actually shoot to kill. To increase this percentage, the military now uses video games to desensitize our soldiers to killing – and they have experienced a very high success rate. Fortunately, the military fosters this desensitization in the context of war. The military conditions our soldiers to know that the desensitization does not extend to ordinary life. Who is conditioning our children on when the desensitization is inappropriate? Parents should be doing this – but how many children do not have the parental guidance they desperately require? Or to be even more politically incorrect, how many parents do not have the capacity to teach their children?

After 9/11 the catch phrase “If you see something, say something” came into popular usage. It was a call for civilians to be mindful of potential terrorist activities and to alert law enforcement officials as soon as possible in order to investigate and to stop any potential threats before they were carried out. We need the same policy for people who may pose a threat because of potentially diminished mental capacity, mental delusions and/or unreasonable anger. This is a “politically correct” sensitive area. However, we are rational people and we can do this. For example, if you see a person acting in a strange manner, you can assess whether he has the potential to do harm (and it should be okay to err on the side of caution). If you think he could possibly do harm, you should contact someone in his or her life to alert them for further evaluation. This could be the individual’s parent, spouse, their school principal, their place of worship, or (if in a work setting) their boss. If you do not know the person, tell the police. If we normalize this type of reporting into our society; it would not be considered “out of bounds” to identify someone as possibly needing help. There would be no stigma attached to the reported individual or to the reporter. (At least I would hope not because I am confident that someone would call my wife and ask: what the heck is up with Frank?)  Such reports should be viewed as just a check that the reporter realizes could be completely off-base. If we operated under this condition there would be no negative impact on the reported individual or on the reporter. Without this being a societal norm, it takes a lot of courage for someone to speak up (it’s just not politically correct).

The point is; if you see something, say something! And, it does not have to be a young man wearing a suicide vest. It may be some young, disoriented person with an angry look on his face. Rather than walk by and forget about him, think of the Newtown children - and do something.

If we do become less political correct, our civilian commitment laws will need to be reviewed so that a potentially dangerous person could be provided with treatment before they actually commit a violent act.

Then; there are our gun laws. I do believe in the 2^nd Amendment right for people to own guns for their own protection. However, along with this right comes responsibility. Strict permitting requirements should be in place for every gun purchase. The individual must pass both a criminal background check and a psychological test (no matter how politically incorrect this may be). Then, the gun owner must be held responsible for the safe keeping of that gun so that no other individual can gain access to it. If a gun owner becomes aware that his or her gun is missing, they must report that to the police immediately.

All guns must be registered. If an individual moves to a new area, their guns must be registered with the new local law enforcement organization. I would like to see a bullet shot from each new gun purchased and for that bullet to be digitally scanned for its “gun barrel fingerprint” so that bullets found at crime scenes could be matched to the gun used. This may be too expensive or not yet technologically possible – but it would be a great law enforcement tool. People caught with guns in their homes that are not properly registered should face stiff penalties. People caught with guns on their person without a permit for carrying a gun should face even stiffer penalties. People that use a gun to commit a crime should be given long prison sentences. We must enact public policy that reflects society’s values that our gun culture is no longer acceptable.

In New Zealand, the gun purchaser and everyone that lives with the gun purchaser is interviewed prior to issuing a permit for obtaining a gun. The purchaser must also take and pass a course on how to use and safely store the gun. After that, the gun owner must renew their gun license every five years by going through the same process. We should consider measures like this.

I agree that guns do not kill people. People kill people. However, we should not make it as easy for people to kill people as we do. People should have the right to own guns – but not military assault riffles. We should define a short list of acceptable types of guns that people are allowed to own, codify that list into law and strictly enforce the law.

The death of twenty children in Newtown, Connecticut has heightened our realization that guns have gotten out of control. However, even if all the above measures were already embedded into our society – the lives of those twenty children may still have been lost. There is no perfect solution. However, with the above measure, we most likely will prevent some (if not most) of the future horror stories (similar to the one Newtown, Connecticut is living through right now). And, we should be able to significantly reduce the 12,000 people that are killed via gun violence each and every year in our great country.

                                           *                              *                          *

By the way, my book is available as a free Kindle download today (12/19/2012).  It has a lot of common sense solutions to the many problems facing America today.  It is a quick and refreshing read.