Good Guys

An editorial…

Lately I’ve been thinking about self-control. And schools. And the doctrine of “in loco parentis” (in the place of parents). It seems to me we are missing a major point in the debate surrounding the Second Amendment.

On one side we have some who want to ban and/or confiscate various types of firearms. Their argument: So far, as the number of guns has increased in the US so have gun deaths, particularly mass shootings. And now, more children in the US are killed by guns than anything else. The numbers argue for additional limitations on gun ownership, regardless of the supposedly “sacred” right to bear arms.

On the other we have some who insist the answer to gun violence is “more guns,” to enable “good guys” to stop evil in its tracks, like Wyatt Earp in the movies. I say this because my Father recently asked me whether we are becoming a country where everybody has a gun on his hip, like the old west. Do we really want to end up arming everyone rather than risk infringing on anyone’s rights?

Some say, “it’s not the guns, it’s mental health.” Well, obviously mental health has a lot to do with gun violence, and violence in general. Even so, anyone, no matter what their mental state, can pull a trigger and kill people at a distance. It takes practically zero training and zero mental competence. The question is, why would we let a mentally disturbed person or a person with no impulse control have access to a gun, much less an AR-15, in the first place?

A therapist once told me the mental health profession was the “red-haired step-child of the healthcare system.” Further, she said that people who need help often can’t get it until after they attempt to harm themselves or others. Clearly, we need to do a better job, not only of treating people with mental illnesses, but also of identifying them before they harm themselves or others. Nevertheless, this is not an either-or situation. It seems to me we must address the problem of access along with mental health.

I don’t believe Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the rest intended everyone to bear arms, no matter what some think the Second Amendment states. I’m not an originalist by any means, but it seems to me that Common Sense was not just a pamphlet by Thomas Paine. Certainly, in the 18^th Century, thoughtful people would not have wanted the “village idiot,” “the town drunk,” or any person “not in his right mind” to have a gun. There are certain assumptions underpinning the Second Amendment, and one of those is that a person must have the competence to exercise this powerful right.

The Bill of Rights was the product of enlightenment thinking. When Madison used the term, “well regulated,” his premise was personal regulation; he assumed members of the “militia” would be self-governing, therefore able to practice self-control. In this context, I take “well regulated” to mean mentally competent, reputable, honest, emotionally mature, able to take orders and work for the common good, fit for duty, prepared to serve, and so on. I don’t think any mass shooters have been “well regulated” in this sense. I doubt Madison would have agreed that all persons are “well regulated.” I would like to ask him, “do you think someone who is mentally incompetent or unbalanced should carry a gun?” His answer would probably be that this question is nonsense – of course we should not allow such a person to serve in the militia, much less bear arms. Further, let’s keep in mind there are now 132 times as many angry or disturbed people as there were 250 years ago.

In my mind, the “good guys” are the “well regulated,” not necessarily the police or the military, or everyone who claims they are responsible, stable, and as proficient as Chuck Norris. This is where government must answer a difficult question: What is the best way to protect the right to bear arms for the “good guys” while keeping firearms out of the hands of those who cannot or will not regulate themselves? If we were all self-governing, we would not need laws and regulations. The law exists to reduce the chances that people will come to harm at the hands of those who are not well regulated.

The government – we, the people – have a duty to protect school children, just as parents do. If a parent is negligent or fails in their duty, their children may be placed in the custody of someone who can do a better job. So, whenever a person lacks the competence to bear arms, we are obligated to act. Simply stated, we must try to prevent harm to children, which means we must take reasonable measures to do so. The Second Amendment is for the “good guys.”