Thursday, March 8, 2018

Melanie Phillips: The American right to bear arms

Having been travelling in America over the past couple of weeks, I observed at close quarters the fierce debate that erupted there over firearms in the wake of the massacre at the school in Parkland, Florida where 17 children and adults were killed and 14 others injured when they were gunned down by a mentally ill former student.

There have been too many such massacres of the innocent in American schools and other public places. This is the first time I can recall such an anguished debate: the first time the feeling that America can’t go on like this has transcended the usual suspects in the Democratic Party and on the broader political left.

President Trump has earned the fury and dismay of many conservatively-minded folk for pushing back against the National Rifle Association with suggested restrictions on gun ownership.

That seems instead to me to be further evidence that Trump is a most unusual president who just doesn’t conform to any stereotype. He has reacted to this terrible event in an entirely rational and compassionate way: realising that America has a problem which can’t be altogether explained away by the undoubtedly valid concerns over the warning signs about the shooter that were ignored by the FBI and other authorities, and wanting to take action to address that problem. And the problem is the ease with which Americans, including mentally ill Americans, can obtain guns. Because without guns, these mass shootings would not occur.

But then I would say that, wouldn’t I, because I’m a Brit. And most Brits look on America’s gun culture and its resulting tragedies with absolute astonishment. For that culture is entirely foreign to Britain where even the police are not routinely armed, and where mass shootings don’t generally occur (other than in terrorist incidents) because the population doesn’t have guns.

And yet, I was told over and over again, most people are armed in Israel, aren’t they, and they don’t have a problem; their guns keep them safe. Well no, that’s wrong and a total misunderstanding. Most ordinary citizens in Israel are not armed. Some are, but the vast majority are kept safe by armed officials such as police officers or guards or the IDF. If civilians do possess guns, these are issued only under the strictest possible controls and with every firearm logged.

Americans who support civilian gun ownership deeply, truly, unalterably believe in their right to bear arms as enshrined in the US constitution (although there’s a never-resolved argument over whether this covers armed militias or armed individuals). The reason this is incomprehensible to a Brit is the chasm that exists between the way the Americans and the British view the state.

Americans who are not on the left view the state as a threat — to their wellbeing, their pocketbooks and even their lives. In Britain, however, the state is not viewed as a threat. Sure, there are arguments over the size and reach of the state, the high rate of taxation, the incompetence of government departments and so on. But unlike in America, the government or the state are not regarded as an intrinsic threat to life, liberty and personal safety. So why the difference?

I think one important reason is that the British have a fundamental confidence in the institutions of the state. And that’s because they really are the institutions of a free society, with an independent judiciary, police force, public prosecutors and so on. Yes, there are well-founded concerns that, in recent years, some of these officials have come under too much pressure from central government and buckle too readily; but ultimately they are independent of sectarian politics.

By contrast American police, prosecutors and even the Attorney-General are all political appointees and therefore not independent of the state at all. They look upwards, not down; they owe their allegiance to their political masters and not to the public. There is therefore far less confidence that they will safeguard the interests of the public against the coercive power of government, either at federal or state level.

In Britain, as in Israel, people look to the state to defend them against attack. In America, people seek defence against attack by the state. The American public is a kind of permanent potential insurgency against coercive state power. That’s why bearing arms is considered to be the sacred right of every American.

If they want to do something to prevent the multiple tragedies that flow from that right – not to mention the daily attrition rate as young men mow each other down in gang warfare – they need to look to their democratic institutions which aren’t really democratic at all. 

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist, broadcaster and author - you can follow her work on her website HERE


Anonymous said...

The fact you dont seem to relise IS that britain is heading in a neo modernist direction. They are slowly, as thats how it happens, creating the environment of people control. They are britons, the most survielled population in the western world. They have incarcerated citizens for defending themselves & thier property whilst allowing the perpetrtors of crime to go free. This type of punitve measure is to intimidate a society, to make them bow down to a overeaching & anti freedom state. The fact is the individual should in a free country not only have the right to self defence (one could argue the state in the UK is trying to remove this by bully boy tactics) but the means. Without which the right to self defence is moot. We NEVER send unarmed people to stop an armed maniac EVER. I would rather carry that means to my & mines defence & never use it, than to need it & not have. I wear seat belts, I wear a helmet on a motorcycle. I wear a life jacket. If I was able to I would carry the means to my self defence & not have to simply endure or die or watch loved ones be butchered as demanded by the state. If we look to history the climate politically, you appear to endorse is the same climate that allowed GOVERNMENTS to butcher 100 of millions of their own unarmed citizens. The only place on earth that is unlikely to happen is the USA & that is due to the founding fathers wisdom & the american peoples courage in the face of adversity & anti freedom ideology.

Anonymous said...

Well reasoned, and containing some logic why Mr. Trump was so surprisingly elected against all of the Leftish evil. Draining the Swamp carried an appeal to the ordinary American voter who could see that something drastic was required to overcome those evils. Trump's cautious steps and comments concerning gun ownership indicate a willingness to consider things which were previously beyond consideration. Slow moves to limit the types of weapon, with cautious rebuilding of peoples' faith in state and federal institutions may see the necessary improvement, but it will be a very long and difficult path.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous Well said. If we were to follow the logic, lets ban forks to combat obesity. We can take this to even more extremes, but I won't go there. Banning guns only affects law abiding citizens by making them vulnerable. The police are only minutes away when seconds count. The latest school shooting highlights that even more. While the shooter was doing his work with impunity, armed "security" were outside listening to the carnage. The solution is not to ban guns, but to apply the laws which are already in place to stop unfit people from owning guns, and to do away with the idiotic "gun free zones" which serve no puirpose other than to invite trouble.

mike said...

I can see the argument of both sides of the UK and the USA. We in New Zealand are lucky that our laws allow gun possession with limitations and our laws seem to be the best of both 'worlds'. Being of British birth but of NZ culture, I take a gun to be a tool for either hunting or sport and not for dispute settlement. I own several guns for sport/hunting but in an argument with, say, my neighbor I would not consider grabbing my gun to settle it. I may take a swing at him with my fist, but not a gun. American has to have a culture change before the second amendment is changed or modified.

Anonymous said...

I have American friends whom I would consider very sane and intelligent but their God Given right to carry concealed weapons to defend themselves is astonishing.


Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

They do - a muzzle-loading musket and a couple of muzzle-loading pistols, that is. The writers of that constitutional right weren't thinking of rapid-fire weapons. No gods gave them that right, mind - rather, the perils of living in what was still a rather lawless country.