Let’s give up gotcha for thoughtful debate
After reading a guest column in the morning paper, I feel compelled to discuss gun rights in this country and how the issue is used to support or defeat candidates for public office.
The chairman of the Montana Republican Party, obviously a John McCain supporter in the presidential race, began with this lead: “When it comes to gun rights, Barack Obama isn’t shooting straight with Montana.” Catchy, but is it fair?
He allows that Obama is one of the finest political orators he’s ever heard, but that he “can’t talk his way out of this simple fact: His views on the Second Amendment are simply out of step with the values of a vast majority of Montanans.”
Since Montana -and much of the Rocky Mountain West-is primarily ranch and farm country, this is probably true. Ranchers need guns and will fight to protect their right to use them in defense of livestock and property. I don’t feel that right has been threatened by any of the candidates or is likely to be in the future.
The NRA, however, uses every occasion to squash any effort to control the ownership and use of all guns anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
The last time I heard him speak on the issue, Obama was responding to a question about the constitutionality of Washington D.C.’s ban on guns, the case recently brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. I thought his response to be reasoned and very close to the view that most people I know (both Californian and Montanan) hold. Sane, law-abiding people in this country have a right to own hunting rifles and shotguns, and even side arms. At the same time, Obama has said he’s not in favor of concealed weapons (Montana has concealed carry laws) and thinks that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could get shot during altercations. The GOP chairman wrote, “His mindset on guns is pretty clear-arm the criminals and prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves.” Talk about inflamed rhetoric.
I read Obama’s remarks differently. He seemed to understand that law enforcement in densely populated inner cities could do the job better and safer if there were fewer guns. We’ve all read of incidents where shopkeepers who sought to protect themselves from robberies wound up shooting innocent people or being killed when they confronted armed robbers with their own guns.
I’ve heard deer hunters say they always carry a revolver to finish a kill because a wounded animal will fight when approached, and a rifle with a scope is too awkward at close range. On the other hand, I’ve never met a hunter with an AK-47, a sawed-off shotgun or any automatic designed to kill many people at one time, as in combat. But the NRA fiercely defends every American’s right to have such weapons.
The last time I looked, the Constitution addressed only armed militias, and mentioned no right of every citizen, be they a felon or a mentally unstable student, to carry concealed weapons or assault rifles.
The GOP state chair may have a more accurate assessment of Montana opinion on gun restrictions than I do. But recent proposals backed by the NRA lobby to allow unfettered gun use in Yellowstone Park, for instance, drew both fire and support from local citizens.
Current law (in all National Parks, I believe) says that if you are transporting guns within park boundaries, the guns must be unloaded and not readily accessible, as in a car trunk.
Sensible as this may seem, gun enthusiasts seem to support the policy change while regular park visitors express dismay at the prospect.
The current policy makes perfect sense to me. Why would we want loaded firearms in a wildlife refuge where most visitors are armed only with cameras? If people follow the posted rules about disturbing or approaching wildlife and maintaining a safe distance, they’re unlikely to need a gun for protection. Actually, it’s the wildlife that needs protection.
Growing up in a safe neighborhood, I didn’t know anyone who had a gun, except my grandfather who kept a shotgun and bird shot for duck hunting. My older sister and I knew which areas of the city might have gangs (in those days they were armed only with knives) and avoided them. The danger increased exponentially when gang members started carrying guns and snipers with rifles occasionally took potshots at passing motorists. We felt more likely to be caught in the crossfire than targeted. And when I worked at night, I always took my Doberman with me. She never would have bitten anyone, but she was a great deterrent nonetheless.
For the most part, I think current gun laws are sensible. We probably should have some gun-free zones, but in most cases, local authorities might better regulate these.
We have so many difficult problems to resolve in our nation, let’s not get fixated on hot-button issues that polarize opinion. May the moderators of debates and those who interview candidates give up the gotcha questions and focus instead on the real problems a president might actually solve with fresh ideas and thoughtful leadership.