Opinion

OPINION | GREG HARTON: Aggressive gun attitudes don't help with responsible firearms use

If anyone ever doubted the United States is the gun capital of the universe, the last few weeks has delivered plenty of sworn testimony to that status.

I'm among the many Americans who in recent weeks have had my TV streaming service tuned to CourtTV for two trials involving charges of homicide. There are nearly 20,000 homicides every year in the United States, so that's not what makes these trials unique.

According to the National Vital Statistics System, out of all those homicides, there are more than 14,000 involving firearms. The fact that these two cases involve firearms is not in and of itself what makes them the spectacle that they are.

Firearms are, however, central to the crimes. In Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse stood accused, among other charges, of homicide in his fatal shooting of two protesters last year in Kenosha. The August 2020 protests arose after a Kenosha police officer shot Jacob S. Blake, a 29-year-old black man wanted on a warrant charging third-degree sexual assault.

As I worked on this column Friday, the jury after 26 hours of deliberation in Kenosha returned with verdicts acquitting Rittenhouse of all charges.

The second trial continues on Monday. It's in Brunswick, Ga., near the Satilla Shores neighborhood where 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, a black man, was fatally shot by a white resident of the neighborhood, Travis McMichael, after he and two other residents chased Arbery down on unconfirmed suspicions Arbery was responsible for some petty crimes in the neighborhood.

The Rittenhouse shootings sparked debate over the practices of people who appear to believe the best way to protect their Second Amendment rights is to strap on semi-automatic rifles or sidearms and stand vigil in public settings as self-appointed guardians. In this case, Rittenhouse and others stood their ground as declared protectors of property that didn't belong to them, but that might be damaged if the protests became destructive.

Similar folks aren't unheard of here in Northwest Arkansas. They've shown up at events they really have nothing to do with, but always prepared to demonstrate a show of force. Forget concealed carry for them. A Second Amendment right apparently means nothing if one can't show off his armor and firearms in a public declaration of standing one's ground.

I'm sure people in areas of the country less prone to adoration for guns were probably shocked at testimony in the Georgia case from neighbors. It seemed almost incidental that neighbor after neighbor routinely carried at least one gun with them.

I've got no problem with gun ownership. I own guns myself, kept in a gun safe most of the time. I have legally carried my handgun without advertising its presence to the world. I have no need to show it off.

Whether what Rittenhouse or those bozos in Georgia did fit the legal definition of a crime is up to the courts. But it's pretty clear in both instances that three men are dead because the two people who pulled the triggers operate in a culture of firearms adoration that reduces the resistance one ought to feel to pulling a trigger.

Why was Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, even hanging out late at night with a rifle at a volatile protest? Does that make it more or less likely he'd be involved in violence? Self-defense includes using the good sense God gave us to avoid situations that increase the chance use of a firearm will be necessary.

Self-defense against violence is a valid justification for a use of force. But as the instructor of a handgun class once advised, the best self-defense is staying alert and keeping yourself out of dangerous situations.

Almost anyone, as testimony showed in Georgia, can have a gun. That's a far, far cry from behaving responsibly with one.


Upcoming Events