Today, I heard on Chicago's Public Radio that the US Supreme Court has restricted the rights for states and cities to enforce controls on gun ownership. According to 5 out of 9 judges, people in this country have a constitutional right to bear guns for self-defense. It's based on the second constitutional amendment dating back to 1789, that reads: "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." There has been ferocious debate among US lawmakers as to the exact meaning to these words, but the US Supreme Court has just come down on the side of those who think their country is still living in revolutionary times, like fighting the British, or worse, caught up in a fratricide war, which somehow justifies the use of militias. God have mercy!
The news was of particular interest to me - apart from the fact that I'm opposed to gun ownership by civilians - because the Court's ruling was in connection to a legal challenge to a handgun ownership ban that has been in place in the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park for the past 30 years. Of course, proponents of gun ownership liberalisation were thrilled, such as the National Riffle Association, which I personally find one of the most dysfunctional and thus dangerous organisations in this country. What do they really hope to achieve with this? More opportunities for violent crime, murder and accidental deaths? Boys and their toys... (and girls too, because gun-crazy people come in all sorts of genders).
It makes me think of a recent incident in Brussels, just a few metres from where we live, where an innocent woman lost her life because of a legal gun in the wrong place at the wrong time. It concerned the attempt robbery of a local jeweler. The robbers had a play-gun, but the owner of the shop had a real one. They were able to take the gun from the owner and leave the shop. While trying to get away from the crime scene using a car stopped near the shop, one of the robbers shot the woman driving it dead. While I still hold the robber who pulled the trigger responsible for this stupid death, I cannot stop thinking that she would still be alive today if a real and legally owned gun had not come into the picture.
I suppose owning a gun in a town of 2500 people, like so many small towns in the American "backwater" is one thing, but in a city with millions of people, like Chicago, or New York, is another thing all together. City governments enforce gun ownership bans for a reason; because they must handle significant levels of violent crime, with guns usually playing a fatal role.
My jaw drops every time I read things such as the ones in the BBC's article on this particular ruling: "The Supreme Court's decision follows a weekend in which 29 people in Chicago were shot, three of them fatally, according to local media. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that 54 people were shot, 10 of whom died, the previous weekend as well." So, all in all, 13 people were shot dead in the past week, while the three of us were savouring the beauty of the Chicago summer. That ain't right!
It is also chilling to read in a March 2009 study by the Crime Lab of the University of Chicago on gun violence among school-aged youth in Chicago that "A total of 510 people were murdered in Chicago during 2008. Eighty percent of these victims were killed by gunfire (yes, 80%!). Nearly half were between the ages of 10 and 25, and the vast majority were male (and black, I should add). (...) Chicago’s homicide rate is nowhere near the highest in the nation (apparently, this sad title went to New Orleans in 2009). Nevertheless, our homicide rate remains well above that of such peer cities as New York, Los Angeles, and London, differences that are driven mostly by elevated rates of gun homicide in Chicago."
Forcing Chicago to lift the ban is surely going to make things worse.
(L)
No comments:
Post a Comment