In Sanford, Fla., an African-American teenager in a hoodie and a self-appointed neighborhood guardian with a gun clashed on a dark night in late February. Trayvon Martin, 17, lay dead. George Zimmerman, 28, a former altar boy of white and Hispanic origin and a criminal justice major at Seminole State College, had pulled the trigger. Mr. Zimmerman had followed Mr. Martin, against the advice of a 911 operator. Over the last 14 months he had called police 46 times to report problems and suspicions in his gated community. Mr. Zimmerman has twice been accused of violence or criminal misconduct; but he has a concealed weapons permit and remains at large because Florida, like 23 other states, maintains a “stand your ground” statute that allows individuals to use deadly force if they have a “reasonable fear” of harm.
Mr. Martin, 6 feet 4 inches tall but weighing only 140 pounds, earned extra money washing cars. He babysat for his younger cousins. His offense that night was to be a black youth delivering a bag of Skittles to his soon-to-be step-brother. The Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson described the tragedy best: Mr. Martin may have been killed because of “the bull’s eye that black men wear throughout their lives” and for failing to obey “the vital imperative to never, ever be caught on the wrong street at the wrong time.”
Mr. Martin’s death has sounded a national wake-up call regarding the still imperfect status of race relations in the United States, but it also calls for an examination of a decades-long retreat from rational gun control. A brief period of legislative progress for gun control in the 1980s following the shooting of President Ronald Reagan was met by a counteroffensive from U.S. gun lobbies, principally the National Rifle Association, that continues to this day. Legislators and citizens who should have known better wearied of the struggle to better regulate America’s “militias,” thinking perhaps that gun-rights advocates would eventually be satisfied with various incremental victories against gun controls. But instead, each extension of gun-use rights has only provoked hunger for more.
What has been the effect of this unilateral cease-fire? Pro-gun rationalizations that used to be dismissed as parody have moved into the mainstream. Events at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, the shootings in Tucson that left Gabrielle Gifford gravely wounded and other deadly incidents should have driven the nation toward more rational gun restrictions, but America has gone the other way and seems closer to a gun-happy dystopia than ever before.
Thirty-six states have relaxed restrictions for concealed weapons permits under so-called “shall issue” procedures. Four states require no registration of handguns at all. Other states have severely curtailed common sense restrictions on where handguns may be carried. Now Second Amendment enthusiasts carry guns into shopping malls, bars, college campuses, restaurants, even churches. On March 21 Indiana’s Governor Mitch Daniels signed legislation that allows citizens to use deadly force against the police if they perceive police actions to be unlawful. This has created an entirely new arena for unintended, mortal collisions between police and the public.
In 2005 Florida became the first state to expand broadly the right to use deadly force for self-defense, obliterating the “duty to retreat” from threats in public places. In this new situation, once self-defense has been invoked, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the claim. “Stand” laws have led to the multiplication of cases in which gang leaders, drug dealers and bar-room pugilists have killed those who have provoked them and gone free. Justifiable- homicide claims in Florida have more than tripled since the law was passed.
The incident in Sanford raises questions about race, ethnicity, neighborhood tensions and violence in U.S. culture. A common factor in these issues is the failure of politicians to stand up to the N.R.A. and insist that the safety of the nation’s young people, for example, has a higher priority than a gun-toter’s absolutized version of Second Amendment freedom. Trayvon Martin paid the ultimate price for the public’s declining interest in responsible limitations on gun ownership.
Even if Mr. Zimmerman is prosecuted, gun worship will remain. The Martin tragedy has not discouraged the N.R.A.’s current press for a national right-to-carry reciprocity bill that would nationalize concealed-carry permits. Only a national law that restricts who can own a gun or carry a concealed weapon and limits where guns may be kept can confront this crisis. Rational gun control might save the lives of future Trayvon Martins of every race and age entitled to walk city streets; but it will require courageous civic leaders who really value human life and will stand their ground against the N.R.A.
One would be hard pressed to find a country that has less crime of this type, or fewer killings by guns because of very strict gun control laws. Take for instance Mexico, a country I visit often. There is a sign at the border crossing that in huge letters warns "GUNS AND AMMO ARE ILLEGAL IN MEXICO". My friends ask me why I am not afraid to go Mexico when they read about all the drug war killings? I answer them by saying how could that be true, since guns and ammo are not allowed in Mexico. My friends are quick to realize the logic.
Notice those states with "rational gun control" are the ones with some of the worst violence and crime.
The rationale of "rational gun control" died a long time ago, due to an accute case of reality. A few weeks before the T. Martin incident, two black kids set a white kid afire and the media didn't seem interested. Maybe we should have rational flammable fluid control too? What part of "..shall not be infringed" in the Bill of Rights doesn't America Magazine understand or is it opposed to constitutional rights like freedom of speech as well? Perhaps we could have rational speech control for irrational speech we don't like or editorials like this one. Oh, I forgot, that's called "hate speech." Keep writing. We'll keep reading.
Of course, to interpret the Second Amendment it that way is to say that the qualify phrase regarding a well-regulated militia have no meaning whatsoever. It's as if the framers were being paid by the word. It also raises the question on other regulations. If hand guns cannot be restricted, why should full-automatic weapons be outlawed? What about a nice rocket propelled grenade launcher?
"The incident in Sanford raises questions about race, ethnicity, neighborhood tensions and violence in U.S. culture. A common factor in these issues is the failure of politicians to stand up to the N.R.A. and insist that the safety of the nation’s young people, for example, has a higher priority than a gun-toter’s absolutized version of Second Amendment freedom. Trayvon Martin paid the ultimate price for the public’s declining interest in responsible limitations on gun." "ownership.
This statement is so true. If you are looking for a country with "less crime of this type" Jerome, you need only look north. Canada is not perfect, but you know that most people are not carrying a gun. And there are no gated communities.
Canadians are quick to mention the areas in the United States that are dangerous and run down. Instead of dealing with poverty and race, the United States seems to be moving to a mentality of exclusion. If medical care is not established for all, then the rich will be well and the poor can die. If jobs are not there for all, then the rich will get richer and the poor will be even poorer than before. It is a recipe for trouble.
Thank you for your article. It contains a lot of rational common sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b76mBlnm86w
In depth interview on the previous video:
http://www.infowars.com/obama-impeachment-2012-with-film-director-sean-stone
Nobody really knows what happened that night in Sanford. Yet, you assert that Mr. Martin's offense that night was "to be a black youth delivering a bag of skittles...."
We don't know what happened. You don't concede that there is conflicting "testimony" floating around out there. We don't know.
Your journalistic transgression might not rise to the level of bearing false witness, but be careful. Any time we think we know what took place, and haughtily hold to it, we are being at best short-sighted, and at worst actually sinful. Usually, penance comes in the form of being proved wrong to one extent or another, and feeling properly foolish. This case might be a rare exception, but let's see. The morality still holds in any case.
Have anti-gun people,groups,legislators etc ever proposed to the U.S. public a cogent summary of points on restrictions on the 2d Amendment they believe would convince the Supreme Court to uphold? I would like to see one.
Why were (some) state laws amended to include "stand your ground" provisions? What was the driver of these changes? What was the good intention? Do they more or less have all the same provisions from state to state?
How does that old saying go? "dont expect functional results from dysfunctional input"