Let me start by saying that this is not about taking away your rights to hunt or defend your family. This is not about in any way infringing on your legitimate rights to own guns and use them. What this is solely about is trying to stop the epidemic of gun violence against innocent people that is plaguing our nation, causing untold grief to tens of thousands of families each year.
Gun violence is not limited to the mass shootings that get national attention. While such events are horrific, a far greater problem exists impacting large numbers of innocent Americans. In 2010, for example, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans. Roughly 20,000 of these were suicides; the rest were intentional homicides. Only 5% were accidental shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
Recently, I learned of a particularly moving example of gun violence. A young man who was severely sight-disabled went outside with his guide dog to try and see a comet that was passing in the night sky. While he was outside, a man leaving a neighboring unit after an argument with his girlfriend shot someone on the stairs. Upon hearing the shot, the young man started to hurry back to his apartment. Before he could get back inside, the distraught gunman shot him in the back and killed him. He died on his kitchen floor, his guide dog howling beside him.
In the face of all of this unnecessary loss of innocent life and family grief, how can you be against reasonable efforts aimed to lessen gun violence while not infringing on your legitimate right to own firearms for hunting and self-defense?
Let’s look at the NRA’s arguments and your fears. The NRA’s main arguments boil down to this: No measure reducing access to guns is acceptable because any such measure is a first step by the government and gun opponents to ultimately removing guns from private possession.
This is patently nonsense. There isn’t a politician alive, nor any but a small fringe of the gun control advocacy community, that wants to do anything more than control access to guns for the reasons I’ve stated without disturbing legitimate ownership and use for hunting and self-defense.
If this is the case, then why, you may ask, does the NRA, an organization you trust, take such a broad position? The answer is that the NRA, which began as an organization of sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors, has morphed into the prime spokesman and defender of the gun industry.
Why? More than half of the NRA’s funding now comes from the gun industry, rather than from the dues of its members. And because the NRA can say that it speaks for gun owners ... a broad-based group of Americans ... it is the NRA who is front and center after each gun incident and in lobbying Congress, rather than the trade association of the gun industry. And the gun industry is, not surprisingly, against any form of regulations that reduces sales and impacts their profits.
That is why the NRA is against a ban on assault-weapons. These types of rifles and guns are not used by hunters or in self-defense. But they are a major revenue source for the gun industry.
That is why the NRA is against a ban on magazines holding large numbers (100) of bullets. Again, such magazines are not used by hunters or in self-defense.
That is why the NRA is against mandating background checks in all sales and improving the nature of the checks. These would in no way hinder the purchase by hunters or your average home-owner, but it would dampen sales to criminals and mentally ill people who should not have guns, thereby decreasing sales and impacting profits.
That is why the NRA responded to the Newtown, CT massacre by saying that all schools should have armed guards. This would require a huge increase in the sale of firearms to local government and thus benefit the industry’s profits.
Every position the NRA takes is in support of the gun industry, NOT in support of the sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors who they claim to speak for. But it is you, the NRA members, who have taken the public relations hit for being unreasonable on this subject, not the gun industry.
The time has come for gun owners to realize that they have been used and manipulated by the NRA and the gun industry for its own purposes. You must speak clearly and loudly that you do not support the NRA’s positions and you are in favor of reasonable measures that reduce gun violence while protecting your legitimate right to own and use firearms for hunting, sport, and self-defense.
Gun violence can never be eliminated because, as the NRA is fond of saying, “people do kill people.” People who legitimately own guns will on occasion end up using them in a way other than intended. But the extent of violence can be greatly reduced through reasonable, effective laws.
Please support the modest gun control measures that are before Congress. Call your Congressman today.
In my previous post, I addressed the problems caused by widespread insecurity ... abuse and violence in personal relationships and in social interactions, as well as much unhappiness and stress even without those particular outcomes. But insecurity also plays a major role in the larger issues of social conflict and international war.
For hundreds if not thousands of years, there has been a divide in most societies between the haves and the have-nots. Whether we look at the English nobility, or the WASP establishment in the United States prior to 1960, Southern whites, or the caste system in India, the haves put in place a system which protected their interests and kept “others” or the masses from having the power to be a threat.
The reader might look at these leaders of society and say that they were immensely secure; that this is not an example of insecurity causing conflict. But I would argue that they were only secure because they had put in place these systems, which they did out of insecurity and fear. They were at some level afraid of “others” or the masses gaining power.
The English nobility put in place a system where there was little upward mobility, and then only to a certain point. The English class system ... which was the gate into good schools and good jobs ... was firmly in place until after WWII; many would say it still is. Politically, even after election reforms in the 1800s which gave a political voice to men who either owned or rented property worth a certain amount, the House of Lords, which was the province of the nobility, had the power to veto what they didn’t like until 1911.
In the United States, the WASP establishment until around 1960 had a pretty exclusive grip on all handles of power. Whether someone was Jewish or Catholic, let alone black, all “others” were excluded from the seats of real power, for example, WASP law firms, country clubs, and private clubs. Representative politics provided a path to elected status for many of the “others,” but real power was reserved for members of the WASP establishment until well after WWII.
In the South, whites from the highest to the lowest socio-economic groups put in place and violently supported a system in which blacks had no rights, or what rights they had were systematically denied them. The language may have been one of superiority and security, but here more than in the other instances I discuss, the fear of losing control was always close to the surface and apparent.
Today in the United States, while we live in a very egalitarian society in many respects and there are many laws protecting the equality of people, discrimination based on fear and insecurity is still a major issue. Much has been written, for example, about the vehemence of the Tea Party’s and Far Right’s attitude towards President Obama as being in large part based on their fear of blacks’, and other people of color, gaining more social and political power as the majority status of whites in this country begins to fade away, an opinion with which I agree.
And this is not just a Western phenomenon. For example, the caste system in India, which until relatively recently was very rigid and still causes many problems, especially for those formerly labeled “untouchables,” was an ancient system devised to keep everyone in their place and protect those with power from those below them.
As to the issue of international war, the issue of insecurity is more visible. Virtually all alliances and wars have been an effort to make countries feel secure against the threat of enemies, real or imagined. Even the strong have constantly been worried about attacks on their hegemony. And understandably so.
Obviously, in the larger social context and international relationships, the problem is not directly that children, spouses, and others are not loved unconditionally. However, the basic dynamic resulting from this which impacts interpersonal relationships ... a feeling of insecurity, of not feeling safe, of needing to project strength to counter such feelings ... directly impacts actions in the larger social and world arenas. If those in positions of power felt love towards and from all, then there would be no need for both the national and international systems that have ultimately caused much suffering in the world.
If everyone were raised with unconditional love, listened to deeply, and spoken to with loving kindness, then man would not grow up to be the way man is now and has been for millenia, at least in so-called “advanced” societies.
So far I have discussed the impact of man’s insecurity vis a vis others and its impact on his relationship with other individuals or groups. Another major aspect of man’s insecurity that has affected the course of human development has been his insecurity vis a vis nature, read broadly. It is this insecurity that resulted in the development of religion, from the earliest to the current leading religions.
Man formed religions to answer questions of why nature and other aspects of life are the way they are, and most importantly to provide a way for man to impact their course, whether through sacrifice in ancient times or through modern prayer. And since religion was formed in answer to man’s insecurity, it is not surprising that it was made to serve his other insecurities, whether it was providing a respectable foundation for the continued practice of slavery or lending its authority to a country’s going to war against enemies. Far from being the bringer of peace and understanding, religion has thus been the hand-maiden of war and untold human suffering.
And so, the book I’ve written which has just been published, Raising a Happy Child, is relevant regarding these larger issues as well. It is available through www.ThePracticalBuddhist.com. as well as through the major online retailers and your local bookstore by special order. While based on Buddhist principles, the lessons it contains are applicable regardless of ones religious affiliation. For more information about the book as well as the Table of Contents and sample text, go to the website.
In the aftermath of the massacre at Newtown, CT most of the discussion has centered around how to lessen the risk of such events happening through better gun control measures, including improved data bases to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed. While these are important measures that need to be taken, they avoid the real issue ... why is it that so many people are killed in the United States each year by guns.
In addition to the well-publicized random mass shootings, there is a far greater problem out there. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans. Roughly 20,000 of these were suicides; the rest were intentional homicides. Only 5% were accidental shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
These numbers are huge. They evidence a significant problem in the psychological stability of Americans. I include in this group not just those who perpetrate mass shootings or commit suicide, but also those who commit intentional homicide. One does not kill another person if one is emotionally stable.
But the vastness of America’s psychological problem is far greater than evidenced by gun deaths. If we look at the extent of domestic violence, the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that between 960,000 and 3 million people are physically abused by their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend per year. Other sources report estimates ranging between 600,000 to 6 million women and 100,000 to 6 million men per year. Even taking the more conservative DOJ figures, the problem is serious.
There are no statistics for those who suffer verbal/mental rather than physical abuse. But as anyone who has observed friends and family, as well as strangers, the numbers if they were available would be frightening.
Whether someone verbally abuses a spouse or child, or physically abuses them, or commits suicide, murder, or a mass shooting is a matter of degree, both as to the severity and nature of their psychological disturbance. But in most cases, whether the disturbance is mild or severe, the root of the disturbance is insecurity.
What has caused this epidemic of insecurity? The cause lies in the simple fact that children, spouses, parents, and siblings are typically not loved unconditionally, or certainly do not feel so loved. To most people reading this, this will sound like rubbish for a variety of reasons. First, people think that it is quite right not to love people unconditionally; the very idea sounds like nonsense. Second, it sounds like the ultimate example of permissiveness, which rightfully would be viewed negatively.
The first reaction arises because most of us have no experience with, no role models for, unconditional love. We have not experienced it ourselves, either from our parents or spouses, nor have we seen that trait in others. A recent cartoon in the New Yorker showed a mother with her arm around her young son, saying, ““Heavens no, sweetie – my love for you has tons of conditions” Take away the hyperbole and that states the basic fact of much child-rearing, at least in America (I can’t speak to other countries), and not just currently but probably for a good century and more.
This is not a judgment of parents. Most parent are good people who would never do anything intentionally to harm their child. But parents are people who are a function of their own upbringing and learned experience. They have their own fears, frustrations, angers, and desires. And they see things through the lens of that experience and those emotions, which in turn impacts how they interact with their children.
And so, as children we have been exposed to conditional love at home and conditional respect among our peers. The result is an epidemic of insecurity. And not just among those who receive negative “reviews” from family and peers. Those who get positive feedback are also insecure because they realize that their approval is based on their status at that point in time; should that change ... whether it’s ones looks, ones grades, ones wealth, ones physical ability, ones talent ... they will lose their position at the top of the social pecking order. They know that their approval is very conditional and the fact that they have so much to lose makes them even more insecure, which they mask with huge egos and bravado. This is what accounts for so many people at the top being imperious and often belittling others ... whether it’s “mean girls” in school or financial titans.
As to the second reaction, it stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of unconditional love. Unconditional love is a Buddhist concept that pretty much means what it seems to ... that one loves someone, whether child or spouse, for who that person is. And so regardless what that person does, they are still loved because it does not change who they are. An example of this are parents who accept a child who turns out to be gay because it doesn’t change who the child is in their eyes and thus doesn’t change their love, as opposed to those parents who ostracize such children because they have committed an abomination or at least unpardonable social behavior.
What it does not mean is that one does not provide direction or criticism to a child. An important factor in the development of a child is receiving direction on a large variety of matters from its parents. To love unconditionally means to provide that direction or criticism within the context of such love and when one gives it, to couch it in such a way, to use such words and tone of voice, so that it is clear to the child that the direction or criticism does not impact the unconditional love that they are given. If one loves a child unconditionally, one never yells at a child or calls them “bad” or other negative labels. That would be an example of not speaking with loving kindness, which is the opposite of unconditional love.
As an aside I should note that unconditional love also does not mean that if one finds oneself in an abusive relationship that one stays in it. One may have unconditional love and compassion for the abusive spouse/partner, but if your mental or physical well-being is threatened, one should put as much physical and legal distance as necessary between yourself and the abuser to protect yourself, and if you have children, your children.
Assuming that to some degree at least you agree with my assessment, you may well ask how this problem can be addressed? If generations of insecure people are raising insecure children in a vicious cycle, how can it be broken? The answer is by making prospective and existing parents aware of this problem and encouraging them to take steps to both raise a happy and secure child and at the same time make their own lives better as well. Bit by bit we must start with individual parents and have the effect spread outward.
To that end I have written a book which has just been published, Raising a Happy Child. While based on Buddhist principles, the lessons it contains are applicable regardless of ones religious affiliation. It is available through www.ThePracticalBuddhist.com. as well as through the major online retailers and your local bookstore by special order. For more information about the book as well as the Table of Contents and sample text, go to the website.
Next, “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”
The cornerstone of our democracy, of our constitution and its Bill of Rights, is the principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms, stems from this combination of the right to life and liberty and the government’s responsibility to create a system where that is reasonably possible.
If you asked most people what is one of the most important ingredients in leading a happy life, they would say being secure ... whether it’s secure in ones job, ones financial situation, or ones relationships, or being able to go to the theater or send your children to school without worrying whether you/they will be massacred. The government can’t do much about job security or your financial situation and nothing regarding your relationships. But physical security is one area where the government has a clear responsibility and ability. Whether it’s the local police force or the national defense, an acknowledged primary role of government is to insure that people can go about their lives without worrying for their physical safety.
What happens when one right, here the right to physical security, bumps into another right, here the right to bear arms? The courts have been clear that none of the Bill of Rights is absolute ... not even the right of free speech. If the government has a compelling reason, such as protecting large numbers of people from harm, it can regulate these rights so long as it does so in the least restrictive manner.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the latest Supreme Court decision that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right to bear arms is indeed the correct interpretation. (I say let’s assume because that decision was the first time in the court’s history that it interpreted the amendment in that way.} As already stated, that does not mean that the government cannot restrict that right if it has a compelling interest and the opinion explicitly acknowledges this, giving several examples of existing or possible regulatory restrictions. The implication is that even the current conservative majority on the Court would find that protecting the safety of the general populace is a compelling interest.
What are the statistics on gun deaths? In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents. Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period. In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
Clearly, guns deaths and injury are a very serious national safety and health problem. While the massacres that have occurred in schools, shopping centers, or movie theaters grab the headlines, the volume of deaths caused by individual shootings is far greater. Given that the option of eliminating guns from the marketplace is not a realistic option, how can the government proceed in the least restrictive way, meeting its responsibility regarding public and individual safety while respecting the rights of people to own guns?
I would ask two questions. What types of guns are not needed for either hunting or self-defense? How best keep guns out of the hands of those who should not own them ... criminals and the mentally ill? If the government were able to address these two issues successfully, the problem of gun violence in the United States would be greatly reduced.
The first question is easy to answer. AK-47s and other assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols and rifles are not tools needed for hunting or self-defense. These are weapons for murdering large numbers of people. Yes, rifles like the AR-15 that was used in the recent Connecticut school massacre are rifles favored by many hunters and gun enthusiasts, but a semi-automatic rifle just isn’t necessary for hunting. Sales to the public should be banned. Sales to authorized agencies, such as the police, should be direct purchase from the manufacturer, rather than through a wholesaler, to eliminate a potential source of illegal sales.
The second question is more difficult to answer, but there is a logical series of actions. The first is that no firearm or ammunition sale, regardless whether at a store or at a gun show should be made without a thorough background check. Second the data base accessed in searches needs to be improved. Third, the penalties for the sale of guns and ammunition illegally, that is without following mandated procedures, should be severe. The combination of these actions would not stop the flow of guns into the wrong hands, but it should greatly restrict it and sharply reduce the number of such incidents. And they would do so without impacting the legitimate rights of citizens to own a gun or rifle for hunting or self-defense.
There is no rational reason why gun control and gun rights should be at cross-purposes. No one who wants a firearm for a legitimate reason has anything to fear from the types of regulations I’ve suggested. It is only the hysteria fostered by the National Rifle Association which is heavily funded by firearms manufacturers that has caused this seemingly loosing battle in Congress over gun control. It is firearms manufacturers who fear the impact of gun control on their lucrative sales, so much so that Remington has threatened to move from its birthplace in New York State if the state proceeds to enact gun control legislation.
The time is past due for the President and Senators and Congressmen from both parties to come together to enact reasonable legislation that protects the right of average American citizens to live a life free of the fear of them or their children being gunned down in a massacre. Protect the legitimate rights of citizens to own guns for self-defense and hunting, but control the rest. Let not the 20 children in Newtown, CT die in vain.
