|
|
|
|
Gun Reactions
Editors:
Thank you for the thoughtful
and balanced article “The Culture of the Gun [March-April 2001].”
As a mother of two boys living in a town that treats two to three
persons every week for gunshot wounds and loses at least two persons
every month from gun trauma, I found Robert Bliwise’s reporting
of the complexity in solving the problem of gun violence especially
relevant.
Professor Philip Cook’s
comment that gun violence “is everybody’s problem”
is woefully correct. One result of our gun culture and the politics
it spawns is that parents remain unable to ensure that one of their
children’s most basic needs—safety—is met. There are
three guns for every child in the U.S.; ten kids are fatally shot
every day. The number of children injured by firearms, largely handgun
injuries, is ten times greater than the number of polio victims during
the first half of the twentieth century. American children under the
age of fifteen are dying form gunfire at a rate almost twelve times
higher than in twenty-five other industrialized countries combined.
This is a shameful distinction. Our children need protection from
the misuse, easy accessibility, and poor design of too many of the
approximately 200 million firearms in this country.
I encourage Duke moms and dads
to follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics and remove
guns from your home as “the most effective measure to prevent
firearm-related injuries to children and adolescents.” And before
you send your child to someone’s house (playmate, relative, neighbor,
sitter), please ask if they have a gun in the home. You have good
reason to ask—40 percent of homes with children have a gun and
most are stored improperly.
It is time that our public policies
reflect the truth that most civilian gun deaths in the U.S. tend to
be the result of family fights, accidents, and suicide. Only one percent
(316) of the 30,708 reported firearm deaths in 1998 were justifiable
homicides by private citizens.
On Mothers Day 2000, the Million
Mom March attracted to the Washington Mall over 750,000 people calling
for the prevention of gun death and injury. Today there are over 200
local and regional chapters across the country that may be contacted
through the organization’s website, www.millionmom
march.com. I invite you to join and make your voice heard for sensible
gun policy. The Million Mom March has been endorsed by Duke President
Nannerl Keohane and scores of others who recognize that this organization
offers a unique opportunity to say clearly to our policymakers, “Guns
do kill and too many people are dying. We will not be silent to this
suffering and loss.”
Marcia Owen ’78, Durham, North Carolina
Editors:
I read with interest the article
on guns in the last issue of Duke Magazine. I cannot imagine how Mr.
Merrill comes to the conclusion that his experience as a police officer
in the line of duty with a violent suspect equates to the average
citizen’s need to be armed. If there are any lessons from his
experience, it is that he should have acted sooner to protect himself,
but to conclude that the common citizen would be involved in the same
situation is totally bogus.
I was also amazed at some of
the conclusions drawn by Professor Van Alstyne. He seems to think
that perhaps Mr. Madison, like a schoolboy having to write a one-hundred-word
report, put the extra words about a well-regulated militia into the
Second Amendment just to fill up space. The aversion to a standing
army was part and parcel of eighteenth-century liberal political thought
in which Mr. Madison and other authors of the Constitution were steeped.
The early republic also had few dollars to spare on anything so luxurious
as a standing army even if they had wanted one. The militia was a
force the country could call upon (note, I did not say “rely
upon,” as experience showed that they could not be relied upon)
with little expense both for national defense and as a police. A uniformed
police force came much later and the militia was needed to help calm
the fears of many in the South of slave uprisings. It had nothing
to do with Bubba keeping an Uzi by his bedside.
I’m still searching for
an example of “an army citizenry” keeping the government
from doing what it wants. Shays Rebellion was a catalyst for writing
the Constitution and George Washington certainly didn’t let the
“armed citizenry” of Western Pennsylvania deter him during
the Whiskey Rebellion.
The bottom line is that the
country has evolved, the militia is no more—it was obsolete not
long after the ink was dry, and the Second Amendment as worded is
no longer applicable. The Constitution had provisions for slavery
which are gone; the Second Amendment should go the same way.
Robert Roser ’68 , (via e-mail)
Editors:
I appreciate Duke Magazine’s
attempt to represent both sides of the gun issue in March-April 2001’s
lead article, since political correctness has become an obsession
at most academically elite universities.
The fact is, however, many more
lives are saved than tragically lost by firearms possession and use,
as first illustrated by your description of Patrick Merrill’s
non-lethal brandishing of a handgun to protect his life and further
documented by Professor Lott’s University of Chicago study. Even
our own President Keohane required the use of force to protect her
during last year’s handgun incident in the Allen Building.
No doubt the United States would
be a better and safer nation if, magically, firearms were employed
only for legitimate sporting purposes. Unfortunately, however, our
society can no more easily revise history than we can “reinsert
the toothpaste into the tube.” Guns in the possession of criminals
pose a constant and grave danger to the law-abiding public. Furthermore,
law enforcement—regardless of its dedication and vigilance—can
neither eliminate crime nor guarantee the safety of the innocent.
Therefore, individuals must seriously consider how they will provide
reasonable self-protection. Under the best circumstances, police response
times are measured in minutes, while death and serious injuries resulting
from felons take only seconds to permanently and disastrously alter
blameless lives.
I suspect even the more strident
anti-firearms advocates would agree that every individual has the
inherent right of self-defense. Since the government cannot and will
not guarantee an individual’s safety, what reasonable and viable
alternatives—other than responsible firearms ownership—do
conscientious and prudent citizens have to help ensure their own security?
Obviously, gun ownership is
a serious duty, which mandates firearms safety, security, training,
and proficiency. However, self-protection certainly seems wise when
the alternative—unpreparedness—places life itself in jeopardy.
Roy Kiefer M.B.A. ’78, (via e-mail)
Editors:
I was interested in Robert Bliwise’s
story “The Culture of the Gun” but was sorry that he neglected
to do much in the way of constitutional law research before he relied
entirely on [Duke law professor William] Van Alstyne that the Second
Amendment was “missing in action” in case law. That is not
true.
The most relevant case law was
before the U.S. Supreme Court. To quote from the Web page of the Legal
Community Against Violence (a group of legal scholars and attorneys):
“In U.S. v. Miller (1939), the United States Supreme Court stated
that the ‘obvious purpose’ of the Second Amendment was ‘to
assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness’
of the state militia forces and ‘…must be interpreted and
applied with that end in view.’
“Since Miller was decided,
federal and state appellate courts have addressed the meaning of the
Second Amendment in more than 100 cases. Without exception, these
courts have rejected the view that the Second Amendment precludes
federal, state, or local regulations of the manufacture, sale, and
possession of guns.
“Although academic views
differ regarding the precise intent of the Founding Fathers with respect
to the Second Amendment, the leading scholars that have addressed
the issue agree that the amendment plainly permits regulations.”
You will also find, if you dig
deeper, that there was a draft second amendment that was not prefaced
with the qualifier about “a well-regulated militia.” It
was rejected in favor of the prefaced amendment.
Melissa McCullough M.E.M. ’83, (via e-mail) |
Blue Notes
Editors:
I thought you flat nailed your
piece on championship night and the following day [“Civilized
Celebration,” Special Insert, March-April 2001]. I haven’t
enjoyed anything in weeks as much as I enjoyed reading that. I thought
I ought to tell you so. I also told my many dozen old Duke friends
on the e-discussion list we have.
Steven T. Corneliussen ’70, (via e-mail)
Editors:
Just a great, great story that
perfectly captured the context and meaning of Duke
basketball. A delightful read. Thanks.
Sam George J.D. ’99, (via e-mail) |
|
| |
|
