When the Cost of Liberty Is the Occasional Massacre

From The New York Times, by Jamelle Bouie:

The gun was legal.

Under state law, the young man who killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, was entitled to his guns. He bought his AR-platform rifles legally for his 18th birthday. He had no criminal record. He was, until the moment he shot his grandmother, a law-abiding citizen, the kind of person we are supposed to trust with high-powered firearms.

But this gets to the fundamental problem with the conservative idea that the only people with guns we have to worry about are the “bad guys.” It’s the idea that, as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas put it last year, after a gunman killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colo.: “You go after violent criminals, you go after felons, you go after fugitives, you go after those with serious mental illness, you stop them from getting guns. And when they try to illegally buy a firearm from you, lock them up and put them in jail.”

To the conservatives who posit a sharp distinction between “good guys with guns” and “bad guys with guns,” law-abidingness is an inherent trait of a class of individuals. It is an ontological category; some people have it, others don’t. Any form of gun control is verboten in this worldview because it could interfere with the ability of a “good guy” — of a “law-abiding citizen” — to obtain that to which he is entitled.

This is not how the world works. People are law-abiding until the moment they are not. They are “good guys” with guns until their circumstances and their choices make them “bad guys” with guns. And from the perspective of the person who sells guns and ammunition, there’s no way to know whether a law-abiding customer will, at some point, become a criminal.

The most vociferous supporters of permissive gun laws seem to believe that an armed society will be, for the most part, self-regulating. That we will be able to keep weapons out of the hands of the wrong people and insofar as we can’t, a law-abiding citizen will be there, with a gun, to stop the bad guys, whenever and wherever they appear.

But people don’t exist on such a strict binary. And when we allow for the unlimited proliferation of weapons, we guarantee that when the switch flips, people will die.

If that is the cost of freedom — if our liberty demands the occasional massacre — then conservatives ought to make that case.

2 thoughts on “When the Cost of Liberty Is the Occasional Massacre

  1. I doubt our forefathers meant this as permission to purchase weapons designed for war. I would think they meant if our country is attacked by a foreign entity, citizens would have the right to arm themselves. Surely, not to the extent that gun enthusiasts are doing, and surely not as easily as it appears to be nowadays.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree. I read that the Founders feared a standing army like they had in England and felt it was better to call up armed citizens if necessary to fight foreign agressors. But now the “2nd Amendment” people are so anti-government they think they need to be armed to the teeth against their own countrymen. And I think the NRA has had a big part in influencing that. They used to be about hunting, but that didn’t sell enough weapons.

      Liked by 1 person

Okay. Your turn!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s