Guns And Poses

Here is an objective, nonpartisan fact that puts another exclamation point on what happened in Uvalde, Texas: Gun violence is the No. 1 cause of death among children in the United States.

Let that sink in for a moment. American children are not as much at risk of dying from any other cause as much as being shot.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly two-thirds of the 4,368 U.S. children up to age 19 who were killed by guns in 2020 were homicide victims. Motor vehicle crashes, formerly the leading cause of death for kids, killed nearly 4,000 children.

Not that gun violence discriminates by age. Ask the families of the 10 victims shot to death at a Buffalo grocery store two weeks ago. The oldest victim was 86.

I am shocked that by now we’re shocked by such events. Every day, 110 Americans of all ages are killed with guns, and more than 200 are shot and wounded. The U.S. gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.

No one at any age should die in such a brutal manner, but there is a special poignancy — and anger — when the victims are those who most deserve protection. But, again: Gun violence is the No. 1 cause of death among children in the United States.

About protection: I am going to surmise that many people who advocate strongly for gun ownership are anti-abortion and pose as pro-life. That is their right, but can they explain this contradiction: The fetus — in Oklahoma, that means from the point of conception — must be protected by severe restrictions, if not an outright ban, on abortion. Yet once born, the children lose that protected status when it comes to guns.

I need to emphasize something: I would not support an effort to repeal the Second Amendment. Getting rid of an amendment to the Constitution is opening a Pandora’s Box, because shifting political winds could push up against other amendments.

Not that it has not been done. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1919. Prohibition ended when it was repealed in 1933. And the Constitution itself has been amended, with one example being that Black Americans are no longer counted as three-fifths of a human being.

Unfortunately, with guns, we seem to have created an either/or scenario — repeal the Second Amendment, or retain virtually unrestricted gun ownership.

By the way, how many people actually know what the amendment states: “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.”

It seems to say that a “Militia” has the right to keep and bear guns, not everyday citizens, but I know this has mostly been interpreted differently. The point is, there is not an either/or, because the Second Amendment can be kept exactly the way it is while allowing room for clarifying the right to bear arms based on technology not available in 1791, when it was ratified.

At that time — when slaves were three-fifths of a person — the typical firearms were muskets and flintlock pistols. They could hold a single round at a time, and a skilled shooter could hope to get off three or possibly four rounds in a minute of firing.

According to wearethemighty.com, an AK-47, created by Russian technology in 1947, has “a muzzle velocity of about 700 meters per second, can fire 600 rounds per minute at the cyclic rate, and hold a 30-round magazine of 7.62mm ammunition.”

Clearly, the capability of such quick and powerful killing at 600 rounds per minute provides in the 21st century has far outdistanced the freedom that the 18th century Second Amendment guaranteed to a militia to bear arms that could at best shoot four bullets a minute.

Also, presumably, many people can grasp that there are guns for personal protection and hunting game, mostly handguns and shotguns, and guns that are the equivalent of monster trucks.

According to nationstrucks.com: “Monster trucks cannot be driven on public roads unless they adhere to state lift laws. Driving a monster truck requires hands-on training regarding handling and safety regulations.” In other words, these super-vehicles are regulated to safeguard the general public, including required training and, no doubt, a special license to operate such vehicles.

Along similar lines, to operate a motor vehicle, one is required to pass a written test, pass a road test to demonstrate competency, and not have had a license suspended or taken away because of a criminal conviction.

While I personally believe in a ban on assault weapons whose only reason for existence is to kill fast and furiously, I realize that is not where real change begins. For gun ownership, there should be a standardized national test and training program that every applicant must pass, as well as a background check.

Really, what is wrong with that? The government requiring that you pass written and road tests is not trying to take away your right to own a vehicle and to drive it. Goodness knows that as it is, plenty of bad drivers still manage to get on the road.

We’re all tired of hearing “thoughts and prayers go out to the families.” Yet I am not hopeful of improvements by Congress to protect against gun violence. If the murder of 26 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School almost 10 years ago did not produce sensible and bipartisan legislation, why will 21 more at Robb Elementary School make a difference?

Strangely, the lawmaker I dislike the least right now in the gun regulation debate is U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. While he is usually a despicable cur, in this instance he has stuck to his guns, so to speak, and attended the NRA convention in Houston last week and claimed that such mass shootings can be blamed on “psychos.”

Well, yes, psychos with guns. But at least he is not posing, appearing to care that, according to The Washington Post, 311,000 schoolchildren have been exposed to gun violence since the Columbine High massacre in 1999.

To the 535 members of Congress who will continue to rationalize doing nothing to fully protect children: Thoughts and prayers for your hypocritical, bloody souls.