The British comic Eddie Izzard does a wonderful bit on the argument that "Guns don't kill people -- people kill people." Comments Izzard, "But I think that the gun helps . . . if you just walked around going 'Bang!' you wouldn't kill too many people, would you?"
Fingers pretending to be guns don't kill people. Neither do nasty words or heated rhetoric or posturing pundits seeking higher TV ratings. In the United States, guns kill people, with no end in sight.
Try telling the parents of a child who has died after playing with a grown-up's handgun that guns don't kill people. Try telling that to the family of a suicide-by-gun, or of the victim of an armed robbery gone fatal. Try telling that to anyone who has lost a loved one to an unhinged maniac on a random, rapid-fire shooting spree at a high school, at a mall, at a university, at a workplace. Guns kill, up close or from a distance, intentionally or accidentally, in anger or in cold blood. Whether a sane or stark mad person pulls the trigger, guns kill people every day. That's what they're for.
The horrifying mass shooting in Arizona, the first of 2011 that will make us shake our heads in sorrow and wonder what the world is coming to, is another senseless tragedy due to our acceptance of guns among us. What use does a 22-year-old ex-college student in Tucson have for a handgun, other than to kill? What use has any civilian, let alone a mentally unstable one, have for an extended clip that holds 30 rounds of ammunition, other than to claim the power to kill, wound, or maim people, and throw the rest of us into despair?
No use at all.
I believe our Founding Fathers, those men of insight who penned, in the U. S. Constitution, a living document that would outlive their time, would be appalled to see the mockery we have made of the Second Amendment. The "people's right to bear arms" is directly referenced to the armed forces, not the crazy guy who takes pictures of himself wearing nothing but a G-string and his Glock. "A well-regulated militia" does not seem to apply to a troubled soul acting out fantasies of revenge and mayhem on an innocent public. Yet we favor keeping loaded weapons in our sock drawers. And we have gun-happy organizations and lobbyists who work tirelessly and spend millions to make sure that quick and unfettered access to guns is somehow equated with citizenship, and that a well-armed public, rather than a subversion of the Constitution's intent, is an aspect of patriotism of which we should be proud. I picture the Founding Fathers as anything but proud as they turn in their graves.
As our nation mourns the victims of the shooting in Tucson -- six dead and 14 wounded -- much has been made of the lifespan of the little girl who was killed there: Christina-Taylor Green had been born on Sept. 11, 2001, a shining light in the darkness of national tragedy, and she died on another grim, lethal day. In between her birth and death, the candle of her life burned brightly. By all accounts, she possessed unusual compassion and grace in one so young. She embodied a true patriotism, an interest in public service that, ironically and tragically, led to her presence at her congresswoman's community meeting on a normal Saturday morning, where her life ended.
In the debate over what may have caused the gunman's actions, people have pointed to the violent, combative tone of our public discourse as a factor. Although we may never know definitively, our society would do well to alter that tone to one of civility and grace. The words we use matter. We know this in our bones if we have ever been on the receiving (or the giving) end of harsh or hurtful words. Words can make a home in our very souls. But when it comes to matters of life and death, all the words in the dictionary cannot kill another person the way one bullet can. A gunshot speaks far more loudly than the strongest, meanest word.
People have also debated whether or not this latest mass killing will bring the issue of gun control back into national focus, especially as the shooting happened in Arizona, near the top among states with the least restrictive gun regulations in the country and where flagrant gun-toting is practically a religion. It should. Unless a person is in law enforcement or the armed forces, he or she has no need for a handgun. The irresponsible argument that "if handguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have handguns" makes as much sense as saying that if stealing is outlawed, only outlaws will steal. A civilized society recognizes that handguns exist for the purpose of killing, and therefore should be restricted. If the laws of a society reflect its values, our current laws, the most lax in the civilized world, indicate a casual disregard for the life and safety of others.
How about this slogan for gun control: Guns don't kill people - overly permissive gun laws kill people. At least, they help. Not so catchy, but provocative. As long as we stand idly by and allow the gun apologists to squelch all reasonable and essential dialogue about gun control, we are accessories to murder.
And we've already had too many wake-up calls.
