US Shooting Tragedies Are the Pangs of a Democracy

On the 16th of this month, a terrible shooting occurred at the headquarters of U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command, the Washington Navy Yard. In the 40-plus years that I have worked in international journalism, I have heard of too many incidences of these tragic shootings in the U.S. From shock to resignation, now one can only sigh, "Oh, not again!"

Eight months ago, on Jan. 16, U.S. President Obama unveiled what was supposedly "the most aggressive and expansive national gun control agenda for generations." Note that this is "gun control," not "gun prohibition." So how tough is it? In truth, it is no more than an appeal for a ban on the sale of assault weapons (military-use automatic and semiautomatic rifles), limitations on high-capacity magazines and background checks on gun purchasers.

From an outsider's perspective, these measures are grossly insufficient for addressing the gun crisis that the U.S. faces. Former Senior Policy Analyst at the U.S. Violence Policy Center Tom Diaz compiled statistics indicating that worldwide deaths from terrorist attacks in 2010 numbered approximately 13,200, while 31,700 Americans were killed in incidents involving guns in the same year. Which is more frightening to Americans?

According to homegrown U.S. statistics, over 30,000 Americans are killed and 200,000 wounded by guns every year, marking the highest mortality rate among developed countries. Because guns are too easily acquired, there are 283 million of these firearms in the possession of the American public.

There are also many Americans who oppose gun ownership. However, their voices cannot stand up to the well-financed bludgeon of NRA propaganda, which claims with self-righteous fervor that the U.S. Constitution has granted every American the inviolable right to own a gun. Defying credulity, it even posits that the cause of shootings lies in the fact that not enough people own guns!

So how exactly is it written in the U.S. Constitution? The Second Amendment to the Constitution, passed on Dec. 15, 1791, stipulates that "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." I take issue with this on two points.

First, the beginning half of this clause is the rationale and the latter half the conclusion. According to the wording, bearing arms should be done in the service of "a well-regulated militia," which is to say that you may only bear arms if you are in the militia. Furthermore, you must be disciplined, rather than allowed to do so lightly. However, the NRA places more emphasis on the second half of the clause and simply takes the statement out of context. This is not only a dubious point in my mind, but also in the mind of many Americans, having even been sent to the Supreme Court. However, on June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that regardless of whether or not one is part of a militia, it is an individual's right to bear arms.

Second, although the law is entirely in agreement with the NRA's interpretation, it is, after all, a law that was set down 222 years ago. Can this truly not be amended again to better conform to the demands of the modern world? Anyone who has seen a Western knows that developing the old frontier was no walk in the park, but a bloody and violent chapter in American history. Heroes of the day were as likely to "go to their guns" as anything else. But this is already the 21st century; one should adapt accordingly!

Regrettably, the NRA is immensely powerful and uses its economic leverage to manipulate both public opinion and elections. Nowadays, it is anathema within political circles to suggest a ban on guns; history shows that candidates who dare raise the issue fail to make it into office. Last year, competing candidates Obama and Romney also maintained a fearful silence on the issue.

People have a hard time believing the assertion that all Americans are now willing to own a gun. If we are to truly speak of democracy, why does nobody dare stand up and call for a nationwide referendum?

As the saying goes, outsiders can often see more clearly than those in the midst of a situation. Guns are not the same as knives. Europe, Japan and the vast majority of other countries have all enacted prohibitions on guns. Americans say they like guns, but this originates in the low sense of security among the immigrants of long ago. After 200 years, does it not warrant even the slightest revision? Change in the U.S. must always meet with the problem of "democracy." Those who stand in support or in opposition of change will never be able to persuade the other of their cause. And within American democracy, there lacks a political authority that can represent the most fundamental and long-term interests of the broadest segment of the populace, so it is considerably more difficult to push forth reforms in the U.S. than in China.

So which system is better? I have no right to decide this for Americans, and U.S. affairs are best left to Americans to ponder for themselves. I will only say that we Chinese absolutely must treasure the political authority we have established after only a century of struggle, and a heavy price paid in blood and sweat. Only with this authority can the Chinese avoid being divided like so many grains of sand. And with this authority, China has stability, hope, a way forward and a level of achievement today that has stunned the world. Of course, this authority must be self-improving and change with the times.

The U.S. gun tragedies are the pangs of a democracy, and have provided us with valuable insights.

The author is research fellow at the Xinhua Center for World Affairs Studies.