Guns & Horses:
Necessities of a Bygone Era

T he several recent tragedies in the United States, where children obtained handguns and committed heinous acts that they themselves cannot fully comprehend, brings us again to a familiar issue of Gun Control. But this issue is actually a collision between the US Constitution and Human Rights. Opponents of efforts to control firearms argue of the constitutional right to bear arms. Common citizens wonder if they have the right to be safe.

We have to ask what the intent of this right was. If it was to allow the people to form a militia to correct potential breaches of government powers in a young and fragile democracy, it was a noble aim, and the democracy survived (after a fashion). Do we tolerate armed militia to be formed today to bring breaches of the government into line--certainly not. The world today is considerably different from what it was two centuries ago. Why must we look at that right as being cast in steel forevermore?

Let us say, for a moment, that 18th century European governments decided that much disease was caused by horses in crowded cities. It is a well-know fact that decent sanitation technology was not implemented in most European cities until will into the nineteenth century. So let us say that a certain European government consequently banned all horses in cities. The founders of the United States, seeking ultimate freedoms from repressive governments, might have written into the Constitution that it was every citizens right to own a horse. It may sound ludicrous, but recall that horses were as important to people in that time as automobiles, trains and airplanes (combined) are today. Now suppose that this were defended as a constitutional right in the 20th century, by horse lovers. Imagine how unhealthy New York or Washington would be if the population of horses were even one-tenth the number of cars: sanitation would be a massive problem and public health would be compromised.

Fortunately this is not part of the US Constitution. However, what was useful and vital to an 18th century citizen is not necessarily in the best interests of citizens of any country late in the 20th century. It is time to look seriously at the right to carry such dangerous weapons versus the right of all to live in safety.

I have spent considerable time (17 years) living in and visiting countries where guns are strictly controlled and highly illegal (e.g., Malaysia, SIngapore, Indonesia). It is always a comforting feeling to be able to walk the streets in any part of the cities in those countries, at any hour, day or night, without any fears of being shot at or being in danger. I consider it an important right of all people to be able to live in safety instead of fear. In the modern era, where the right to overthrow the government by forming a militia is as futile and absurd as the right to own horses, the right to bear arms truly needs to be examined. In the United States the Gun Lobby is powerful. Where is a complementary Safety Lobby? Surely the number of people who do not own guns and who are living in fear outnumber gunowners.

The core of the pro-gun lobby says that if guns were outlawed only outlaws would own guns. This is, of course, correct in two ways. People who did not wish to use their guns for crime would still be outlaws by the mere fact of ownership. And people with evil intent would ignore such a law and arm themselves to make their criminal efforts more successful. Only an effort to collect guns (or render them unusable for firing in the case of historic collectibles), besides increasing the penalties for committing a crime with a firearm, would be effective. Just as the government today is buying up land that lies in high flood risk areas so that it can never be built on again, so too the government could buy up weapons and destroy them. If the cost to society of violent crime aided by the use of firearms is so great, an expenditure to reduce the population of weapons should balance in the long run by reducing such crime and the costs to society.

As an artist I can imagine a huge sculpture formed by welding together thousands of handguns, a True Monument to Personal Peace

But freedoms once given are difficult to rescind. Humans don't like to be told what to do. Especially by governments. Freedoms never granted can never be missed. Some people love horses, but most do not. It wasn't a right and it isn't missed. But in this world, how many countries consider it a right to own a gun? How do their crime rates compare with those places where guns are rare and illegal? These are some serious questions to ask when we witness the horror of how easy it is for little boys to get their hands on weapons and use them like toys, barely able to fully fathom their horrible deed.

Postlude

If true Gun Control is impossible to implement, some alternative legislation could be considered:

1. All handguns must be registered to an owner, regardless of jurisdiction. Rescind local laws that differ from place to place. Institute state or federal laws.
   
2. All existing and new handguns must require a test firing, to collect the signature marks made as the bullet passes through the barrel. Such signatures would be stored in a digital data bank the same way that fingerprints are archived today, making ownership immediately known, tied to the registration, when a bullet is recovered in a crime.
   
3. Make the registered owner responsible, in part, for any crime committed with his registered weapon, regardless who actually fired it.
   
4. Buying and selling of new and used handguns must be processed in a way similar to how vehicle ownership is handled today -- a state Department of Firearm Control.