Gun Control in the United States, #2
This is the second post on the topic of Gun Control in the United
States. The first post is found here:
For twenty years, momentum in the gun control debate has been
toward fewer restrictions. The latest mass-shooting in at Shady Hook
Elementary School in Connecticut seems to have abruptly changed the direction
of that momentum. It remains to be seen if the latest tragedy will change the debate and result in more sensible gun laws.
“Stand-Your-Ground” Laws and The Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Republican-controlled state legislatures in thirty-one states have
enacted or are considering some version of the “Stand-Your-Ground”
law. The essence of the law is that an individual is permitted
to use deadly force in situations where the individual believes an attack is
imminent, and that his life is in danger. The “Stand-Your-Ground”
law gives the right of legally justified, preemptive self-defense. A
person who kills another person under these circumstances may be exempted from
prosecution.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin challenges the logic and
practicality of stand-your-ground laws. The details of the case are
familiar to all who read American news.
On the night of February 26, 2012, Trevon Martin, a 17 year old
black youth, walked to a local convenience story to buy a bag of candy as a
gift for a younger black child. Martin was visiting his father in a
Florida suburban community. George Zimmerman, a Latino
resident of the community, was patrolling the community as leader of the
neighborhood watch crime-prevention program. Zimmerman was
suspicious of Martin, followed him, both by car and on foot. Martin
ran, and tried to elude Zimmerman. Zimmerman followed Martin and
eventually confronted him. At the end of the confrontation,
the black teenager was dead, killed by a gunshot to the chest.
Many details of the incident are unknown. According to
Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin became angry, punched Zimmerman in the nose, and
pushed to the ground, and beat Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman
then shot Martin in self-defense. Zimmerman’s injuries are
consistent with his story.
Zimmerman invoked Florida’s “Stand-Your-Ground” law, and local
police did not charge Zimmerman with a crime. After a national
outcry, a new investigation was conducted, and Zimmerman was charged with
second-degree murder. Pre-trial work is continuing, and the trial
will be held in mid-2013.
Who was standing his ground that night in Florida? Zimmerman
stalked Martin by vehicle for 15 minutes prior to their confrontation. Martin
had every reason to fear for his life. He had no idea why Zimmerman
was following him, and he was dead within minutes. Martin stood his
ground by punching Zimmerman in the nose. If Trevor Martin held a
gun and shot Zimmerman instead, would he have been released under the same law
that initially protected Zimmerman from prosecution?
Are
More Guns the Answer?
Following
shooting tragedies, such as the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Arizona, or the
Aurora Theater shooting in Colorado, gun-rights advocates often claim that the
solution is more guns. They suggest that if more individuals were
armed, law-abiding citizens would respond to an assault and shoot the assailant
before many lives were lost.
The
immediate problem with that idea is that people intent on committing crimes
have a clear advantage. The criminal knows his intent, his plan, his
weapons, his timing. Any responder must make a correct judgment on a
split-second basis, find his weapon, load or unlock the weapon, and
shoot. Responders are likely to be too late, or horrifically, to
create “friendly fire” casualties or to shoot inappropriately by misjudging a
situation.
In
the Aurora shooting, the assailant entered the theater from an exit door, about
30 minutes into the film. He was dressed in costume, as were many of
those attending the film. Some witnesses believed he was part of a
publicity stunt, or playing a prank. He threw a smoke canister which
obscured vision for many, and began firing.
Let’s
try a thought experiment, and assume for a moment that every person in the
Aurora Theater shooting was armed and prepared to respond to an assault. In
the dark and smoke, a few citizens would react quickly, and return fire; many
others would not see the original assailant, and would be confused. Some
citizens would see responders rising from the audience and shooting in the
darkness. Some would assume the initial responders were the
assailants, and would begin shooting at them. Soon, the entire
theater would be engulfed in gunfire, as the original assailant would be lost
in the confusion, the dark, the smoke, and the gunfire.
The
idea that ordinary citizens could stop a determined, planned mass shooting is
patently false. School-teachers are prepared to teach school;
movie-goers are prepared to watch a movie. No one is prepared to
respond to a mass-murderer. And an army of armed vigilantes prepared
to respond with gunfire are more likely to commit mayhem and murder in response
to a back-firing truck than to protect the public.
