This commentary is by Duane E. Sherwood, a retired nurse and erstwhile technical writer who lives in Winooski. He enjoys sport shooting and participates in marksmanship competitions. He served in the Army during the Vietnam era as a paratrooper and medic.
Nobody can deny that we have a serious mass shooting problem in this country. The problem is getting worse and cannot be ignored.
As a shooting enthusiast myself, my urgent hope is that the community of responsible, law-abiding gun owners will take an active role in helping to solve this problem. If we don’t, others will, and we might not like the results.
The gun-rights debate is hampered by inflexible thinking. I’m proposing a new framework of mutual understanding to help move us beyond our political stalemate. The polarization around gun issues is intensified by our old friend, fear. Let’s start there.
There are people who are terrified of guns, and rightly so. Guns are dangerous. Guns are designed for one main purpose: to kill things. It is legitimate and healthy to detest the idea of killing, and by extension to hate guns at a symbolic level.
People who fear guns can easily think in terms of taking all guns away. That, of course, is what gun owners fear most.
I too feared guns. However, with training and experience, the fear evolves into caution, then respect, then full control. I now see guns the same way I see chainsaws: things to be handled correctly. I am not afraid of guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding gun owners because I know what it takes to be one.
So here is a radical question: How can society actively support the development of responsible, law-abiding gun owners?
This question creates a whole new frame for the issue. It shifts the focus away from removing guns and toward building a trust relationship with the shooting community. It invites two additional questions: 1) what is a responsible, law-abiding gun owner, and 2) how can we distinguish between those who are responsible and law-abiding from those who are not? Hard questions.
And how might gun owners support this? First, let’s assess the situation. With each mass shooting, the political urgency to find solutions intensifies, and public opinion is shifting quickly. An inflexible stance on gun rights works against reasonable dialogue on an urgent social matter. Essentially, an inflexible stance takes us out of the conversation.
In my view, gun owners need to be the solution. We need to rally around the concept of the responsible, law-abiding gun owner by defining what that means and making allowance for regulations that support that definition. We need to police our own ranks, and soften our thinking a bit, as a way to disarm society’s fears. It’s self-defense.
But a shooter’s thinking is not soft — it is rigorous, disciplined, and highly focused. That said, I’m inviting fellow shooters to consider some ideas:
- Many argue that the right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right. I see that as a misunderstanding. Yes, people have a natural right to defend themselves. But Scripture does not mention guns, and the Constitution is not scripture — it was written by the hand of man.
- The Constitution has been made sacred by the nobility of its principles and the blood spilled in its defense. It deserves our respect. It is our Constitution that sets up our state, and it is the state that grants and guarantees the rights of its citizens.
- Much inflexibility on the issue of gun rights stems from a simplified version of the Second Amendment that is currently popular: The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed … period. However, the actual text of the Second Amendment is not simple: 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.
This oddly worded sentence is inherently ambiguous. Its meaning will always be open to debate. Research into its history shows there have been differing legal interpretations of these words since 1791. Each interpretation has its own valid line of reasoning. If there were valid reasons for differing interpretations in the past, then there are valid reasons to keep thinking about it now.
In this, our time, an open-minded look at the full Second Amendment, including its history and context, is necessary, reasonable and unquestionably patriotic. Ultimately We, The People, must decide which line of reasoning best suits our present situation.
The problem of mass shootings must be solved. But no problem can be solved if we don’t fully grasp what the problem is. What is the root cause of mass shootings? What leads someone to commit random mass murder? Mental illness? Social disconnection? Lust for power? Biological immaturity? Not feeling heard? The possibilities seem endless.
No doubt the problem is being studied by psychologists, sociologists and criminologists. Any serious effort to solve the problem must begin with hearing what these experts have to say.
Politicians must get the full spectrum of relevant facts in order to develop useful and effective legislation. A shallow, reactive approach will do more harm than good, and focusing only on the guns will miss the mark. Let’s work together to get it right and get it done. Lives depend on it.
