2012's Lesson for America

December is a time to reflect upon lessons that can be learned from events that have transpired over the concluding year. In 1945 we witnessed the destructive power of atomic weaponry, and learned that the use of it again for non peaceful reasons must be avoided at all costs. In 1968, we witnessed the Tet Offensive which taught us that American military power is not invincible, even at the hands of an impoverished guerrilla army. In 1973 during the OPEC embargo, we learned that dependence on foreign oil could elicit dangerous blows to our economic strength and stability.  In 2001, following the September 11th attacks, we were presented with the reality of international terrorism, and the tangible threats it can deliver to our nation and the world. 

Yet rarely has America ever been pushed into the flames of reality quite as harshly as the year of 2012. The societal lesson learned this year is a tragic one, a lesson that directly affects families, small communities, and children. The targets of this threat are diverse, numerous,  and unprejudiced. They include schools, churches, malls, and neighborhoods. There is an inherit paradox in this threat, because while the dangers of its use are obvious, proposed political action on the subject has been thwarted by illogical rhetoric of self defense and personal rights. This year, we learned about the dangers of unrestricted firearms.

The events in which we were taught this lesson are disturbingly abundant so for issues of length I will only discuss the most vocal incidents. Murders linked to highly dangerous firearm possessions in the year 2012 started as early as February 26th in Sanford, Florida with the death of Trayvon Martin who was killed by the hand of George Zimmerman, a member of volunteer police enforcement services. This incident was small and seasoned by the media's obsession with race relations in America given the race of the killer (white) and victim (black). Thus the important message in this incident was easily lost by punditry rhetoric and racially divided protests. 

Unlike the cases that were to follow, the perpetrator in this case appears to have shot the victim in a self misguided sense of self defense. Thus, what must be understood here is not the danger of guns themselves but a law relating to gun use in the state of Florida that has been replicated in other states, Stand Your Ground. Stand Your Ground laws give the shooter the benefit of the doubt in the murder of the victim when standing trial. In other words, if the shooter says they killed the victim in an act of self defense, everyone must assume they are correct. 

While the intentions of this law may be commendable, the results lead to an ambiguous legal situation where questions are left unasked. More importantly they relieve pressure on the severity of firearm use thereby reducing the sense of responsibility an individual like Zimmerman would have in possessing and using such a weapon. Of course, the real story in this case was reduced to a white man killing a innocent black youth which lead to even more ridiculous conclusions such as the dangers of wearing "suspicious" hoodies at night. In the midst of the national media circus, Governor Rick Scott, a vigilant supporter of removing responsibility from gun ownership, could easily hide Stand Your Ground in the shadow of race relations. From my perspective, the Trayvon Martin incident morphed into another dramatic media charade like OJ Simpson or Terry Schiavo. In the end it was a case that was completely blown out of proportion. By doing so, public action to repeal Stand Your Ground laws was impaired. Of course, no one was prepared to emotionally deal with the incidents that followed. 

On July 20th, only a few weeks before I would depart for China, the largest mass shooting in US history occurred in an Aurora, Colorado Movie Theatre during the premier of the anticipated movie of the year The Dark Knight Rises. The nation virtually stopped at the news of the massive death brought about by one individual, an act that ended the lives of people of all ages, colors, and creeds. Twelve people were killed and 58 were injured physically, the amount of people mentally injured cannot be measured. What was even more disturbing was the individual suspect responsible, James Eagan Holmes. According to all individuals consulted, Holmes appeared to be a harmless and quiet individual. His academic history would suggest that Holmes had a promising future ahead of him. Prior to the shooting, Holmes was enrolled in a neuroscience program at the University of Denver backed by a prestigious federal grant, and yet he suddenly decided to knock off a movie theatre full of people with two Glocks, a Smith and Wesson MP 15 rifle, and a Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun in a full bullet proof set of body armer worthy of a member of Seal Team 6. Yet the most disturbing feature of this crime is that Holmes was able to acquire all these firearms and an unlimited amount of ammunition from internet purchases, and the government (federal or local) had no file on him. 

Following the incident, the NRA was out in full force to dampen public fears of unrestricted guns going as far as to place the blame solely on violence in movies such as the Dark Knight. The logic of accusing Hollywood entertainment as the cause of this incident makes as much sense as invading Iraq for something that happened in Afghanistan. The real issue here was the complete accessibility any individual has to an unlimited amount of deadly weaponry. If the Feds can track someone's purchases of pharmaceuticals for possible illegal drug distribution, why can't the same be treatment be targeted at another input in the business of crime, firearms? 

Not surprisingly, even given the scale of the Aurora Shootings, the incident fell to the wayside with the impending arrival of the 2012 Presidential Election. But before America could move on beyond Aurora, a shooting at a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin on August 5th which lead to the deaths of six people revived the horrors of the Bat Man Massacre. At this point I was in China, so the details of the incident were not available to me. However, I not only possessed a sense of grief after the incident but a sense of embarrassment witnessing such egregious actions taking place in my country from abroad. 

Then there was the most recent incident which targeted the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society. Following the fatality of 20 school children in the shooting at a rural Connecticut school the past weekend, I have to ask when will it be enough? Maybe the answer is as Bob Dylan said "blowing in the wind," but as of now the metaphor should be replaced with something more applicable and gruesome. The answer is flowing in the blood of the victims, and such answers can't be mopped off the floors of school hallways and vacuumed off movie theaters seats permanently, not even by emptying the lobbying coffers of the entire NRA. As a teacher myself, I know it will be hard to go to class tomorrow in the realization that a third of my class would be eliminated if such an incident were to occur at my school. 

China too is not immune from incidents such as this. Only last week 22 children were injured at a Henan Province school by a mentally unstable man with a knife. But the key to this story is in the words "injured" and "knife." It is illegal to own firearms in China, and I have to say, the realization of such heavy governmental restrictions is comforting when walking the streets at night. It is ironic that I feel a greater sense of freedom to survive when walking the streets of the PRC than I do the USA. Now you can say China too has acts of violence like the Henan incident last week, regardless of strict gun control. But one thing can be said, at least those children will be able to go home and celebrate Spring Festival with their families this year. The same cannot be said for those families in America that will be internally tortured by an empty seat at the table for Christmas dinner, next to the Christmas presents that remain unopened. 

I have no policy prescriptions for gun control. In fact it wasn't a subject I had an interest in until recently. I will say that over the past year, my opinion of how gun control should be approached has evolved. I used to think such subjects should be left to local governments, but given the geographical diversity of the past year's incidents, I now believe gun control must be handled at the federal level. We must face this challenge as a nation because it doesn't affect just certain areas, urban, rural, or suburban. They effect us all.

 We have a moral and patriotic obligation to children, movie goers, religious worshippers, mall shoppers and ourselves to make sure that guns do not only stay out of the hands of those who should not be trusted with them, but that every firearm owner recognizes the true costs of being irresponsible when using their firearm. To put it bluntly, fire ownership is a right not a toy.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I do concede that our founding fathers guaranteed American citizens the right to own firearms. But they were living in a time of muskets and inefficient rifles that took a long period to reload and could only shoot a limited amount of rounds at a time. The founding fathers did not intend for the words of the Constitution to be treated as the Ten Commandments, forever set in stone. They referred to the Constitution as a "Living Document" one that changes with the necessities of the times, and I think they would all agree that given the events of the past year, some drastic changes are needed in America's current policy on guns. 

We are now a nation with a level of gun fatalities that matches Somalia's. This certainly wasn't what the founders intended by a Right to Bare Arms. Furthermore, we must not forget another document written by the founders in which the first lines read "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In my observation, by taking the liberal view of gun ownership that we currently possess, we have robbed these unalienable rights from so many innocent people, many of which had so much of their life ahead of him. Furthermore, we continue to rob them from so many Americans who are afraid to step outside or send their children to school this week. When measuring the strength of freedom in any given nation, I find the freedom from fear to be a greater indicator of liberty than the freedom to own firearms. As Americans, we have a duty to ensure that the freedom from fear remains strong in our nation, and in so doing so ensure that such violence never happens again.