US Gun Disaster: Democratic Nightmare
Published in People's Daily
(China) on 13 May 2013
by Zhan DeXiong (link to original)
(China) on 13 May 2013
by Zhan DeXiong (link to original)
Translated from
by Kim Wang.
Edited by Kyrstie Lane.
U.S. President Barack Obama allegedly presented the “strictest” and “most radical gun control plan in generations” on Jan. 16, 2013. Notice that it is referred to as “gun control” and not a “gun ban.” But is this plan really that severe? In reality, it only proposes to ban assault weapons (military weapons and semi-automatic rifles) and high capacity magazines and to expand background checks.
These measures are far from sufficient to try to resolve the gun disaster facing the U.S. today. According to the U.S.' own statistics, over 30,000 citizens die each year from gun deaths, and 200,000 are wounded from gunfire. This mortality rate ranks highest among all the developed countries. Since former U.S. President John F. Kennedy was shot in 1963, over 100 million innocent people have become victims of gun violence, a figure that surpasses the total number of U.S. military servicemen who have died in battles overseas in the 20th century.
The opponents of guns are numerous. In a demonstration organized by gun opposition groups, shoes were placed in front of the White House to symbolize those who had been killed in one year. However, their voices cannot match the rich and powerful advocacy of the U.S. National Rifle Association, which argues that every citizen has the inalienable constitutional right to bear arms. They reverse the situation completely, to the point where they attribute shooting deaths to there being too few guns.
What does the Constitution of the United States say on the issue of gun control? Adopted on Dec. 15, 1791, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution declared, “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.”
If this provision is taken literally, it implies that it is our right to bear arms as part of a “well regulated militia.” However, the NRA seems to only consider the last part of the statement, taking the issue to the Supreme Court and raising questions for many Americans. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that, with regards to individual rights and the militia, it is the right of all Americans to possess firearms for self-defense. However, even if the law shares the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment, it remains a piece of legislation that was written 222 years ago, when the Wild West of the U.S. hardly had police, let alone human rights. But today it is the 21st century, and we really need to get with the times!
Unfortunately, the NRA has already become too powerful, and it consistently uses its wealth to manipulate public opinion and political results. Today's politicians fear mentioning the problem of gun control, since history proves that those who dare attack the issue often become politically unsuccessful. In the presidential election of 2012, for example, Obama and Romney were both silent on the issue. Today, Obama has to wait for the approval of Congress, while the opposition has already become defiant. In the end, it becomes bargaining, where the only compromise that can be reached is superficial and meaningless, if it can even be reached.
Today, it is difficult to imagine that Americans are still willing to possess firearms. Parents may want to ask themselves if they really would want their child to sit next to a fellow student who has a gun in his pocket. If we are talking about a democracy, why are there not Americans who dare stand up for a national referendum?
As the saying goes: like father, like son. Guns are not like knives; Europe, Japan and other powerful nations already have bans on guns. Americans say they like guns, but this is rooted in an insecurity that developed in the early years of their immigration. After 200 years, is it not time to make a change? In order to change, America is faced with a problem within its own “democracy.” When there are those who want to change and those who are opposed, the situation always turns into “who can convince whom.” American democracy, with its absence of a body within the government that can represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people and their long term interests, has a much more difficult task in trying to instill reform than China would. Which one is better in the end? Ultimately, others do not have the right to make decisions for Americans, so it is better to leave the Americans to slowly figure things out themselves.
Though the issue of gun control has caused a democratic nightmare for the Americans, it still gives us a number of valuable insights.
These measures are far from sufficient to try to resolve the gun disaster facing the U.S. today. According to the U.S.' own statistics, over 30,000 citizens die each year from gun deaths, and 200,000 are wounded from gunfire. This mortality rate ranks highest among all the developed countries. Since former U.S. President John F. Kennedy was shot in 1963, over 100 million innocent people have become victims of gun violence, a figure that surpasses the total number of U.S. military servicemen who have died in battles overseas in the 20th century.
The opponents of guns are numerous. In a demonstration organized by gun opposition groups, shoes were placed in front of the White House to symbolize those who had been killed in one year. However, their voices cannot match the rich and powerful advocacy of the U.S. National Rifle Association, which argues that every citizen has the inalienable constitutional right to bear arms. They reverse the situation completely, to the point where they attribute shooting deaths to there being too few guns.
What does the Constitution of the United States say on the issue of gun control? Adopted on Dec. 15, 1791, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution declared, “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.”
If this provision is taken literally, it implies that it is our right to bear arms as part of a “well regulated militia.” However, the NRA seems to only consider the last part of the statement, taking the issue to the Supreme Court and raising questions for many Americans. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that, with regards to individual rights and the militia, it is the right of all Americans to possess firearms for self-defense. However, even if the law shares the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment, it remains a piece of legislation that was written 222 years ago, when the Wild West of the U.S. hardly had police, let alone human rights. But today it is the 21st century, and we really need to get with the times!
Unfortunately, the NRA has already become too powerful, and it consistently uses its wealth to manipulate public opinion and political results. Today's politicians fear mentioning the problem of gun control, since history proves that those who dare attack the issue often become politically unsuccessful. In the presidential election of 2012, for example, Obama and Romney were both silent on the issue. Today, Obama has to wait for the approval of Congress, while the opposition has already become defiant. In the end, it becomes bargaining, where the only compromise that can be reached is superficial and meaningless, if it can even be reached.
Today, it is difficult to imagine that Americans are still willing to possess firearms. Parents may want to ask themselves if they really would want their child to sit next to a fellow student who has a gun in his pocket. If we are talking about a democracy, why are there not Americans who dare stand up for a national referendum?
As the saying goes: like father, like son. Guns are not like knives; Europe, Japan and other powerful nations already have bans on guns. Americans say they like guns, but this is rooted in an insecurity that developed in the early years of their immigration. After 200 years, is it not time to make a change? In order to change, America is faced with a problem within its own “democracy.” When there are those who want to change and those who are opposed, the situation always turns into “who can convince whom.” American democracy, with its absence of a body within the government that can represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people and their long term interests, has a much more difficult task in trying to instill reform than China would. Which one is better in the end? Ultimately, others do not have the right to make decisions for Americans, so it is better to leave the Americans to slowly figure things out themselves.
Though the issue of gun control has caused a democratic nightmare for the Americans, it still gives us a number of valuable insights.