In recent days, a wave of violence has rocked Seattle, adding to an
already growing number of murders that has City Hall and the Seattle
Police Department scrambling to find a solution to a recent spate of
bloody crimes rocking the city. Far exceeding previous years– the death
toll as reported by SPD now reaching 20 this month as compared to last
year’s 21 for the entire year– citizens are becoming edgy and city
officials are left asking “why?”
The
answer, for some, is easy. All but two of these deaths were shooting
incidents, and many are quick to lay the blame with the weapon used. Most recently, a deadly shooting spree/suicide tore through Seattle leaving five dead, and in a sadly ironic twist, coming just hours after the SPD began to assign guns the blame:
“‘A person who has a gun is more likely to use a gun,’ Metz said after the weekly council briefing.“The pair addressed the City Council on Tuesday to talk about the recent spate of shootings and the Police Department’s stepped-up response.“Police are trying to pinpoint a reason or reasons for the recent violence and are combing through cases as far back as October, when they noticed an uptick in seemingly random incidents.“‘We don’t know’ what has prompted the violence, said Jim Pugel, assistant police chief of investigations. ‘If we knew, we’d be able to put a stop to it, and that’s the frustrating part.’”
A person who has a gun is, of course, far more likely to use a gun. This
is a clear no-brainer. This sentiment, however, leads people to reach
for solutions that don’t really solve the problem of violence, but
merely change how that violence occurs. The fact that people have guns
isn’t the problem. The overall mental health and economic state of
Seattle’s citizenry is.
Before
you jump up and label me a right-wing nutjob, let me explain my
background. I consider myself a radical leftist with a history of
non-violent resistance. I organize political demonstrations, marches,
rallies, and other exercises in peaceful protest. However, I am also a
veteran of the war in Iraq. While I no longer believe in the cause I
fought for, I have in fact used weapons with deadly effect, something
that I wrestle with in my conscience but know that if I need to, I could
again.
The
point is, I know how to use a gun and feel safe handling one. I have
done it, many times, and feel confident that those around me are safe
when I touch one. If I owned a gun, I would think it wouldn’t be cause
for alarm.
Unless, of course, you tried to attack me with a hatchet.
Now, because I had access to weaponry, do you think I was more likely to
go spare and kill five people? Not bloody likely. What made me
different from those who use guns to perpetrate horrible crimes like the
ones we’ve seen recently?
That’s
perhaps not an easy answer to give, but blaming these crimes on
inanimate objects that have deadly potential doesn’t do justice to the
actual problems that drive people to commit violent crime. Ian L.
Stawicki, the perpetrator of our most recent horrors, didn’t kill people
because he had a gun. He killed him because he was sick.
What
the SPD and City Hall aren’t really talking about is that Ian Stawicki,
a schizophrenic who wasn’t accessing treatment, was mentally ill. Like
so many in this country, Stawicki was ill and wasn’t being treated and
there were deadly consequences that ended the lives of five people and
wounded a city.
Stawicki isn’t alone. While he was refusing treatment, so many people simply don’t even have the option of treatment. Mental illness drives many to kill, not guns.
Schizophrenia
is not the only illness that can drive someone to commit murder. The
majority of violent crime is drug-related, and the disease of addiction
is one of the deadlier ones that we face. Instead of treating it, all
too often we jail and punish the afflicted with prison time. Instead of
treating it like a disease, we drive it underground, where a thriving
drug trade can fester, inspiring horrible crimes that happen every day.
Is
the problem with drug addicts that they have guns? Does that make them
kill? Or is it the fact that they are ill, need help, and are instead
being threatened with imprisonment?
Perhaps
what disturbs me most about making guns inaccessible of course, is who
is left holding the guns that we can’t possess. Yes, if you own a gun,
you are far more likely to kill someone. Who do we know that owns guns?
Let
me get this straight. You want one of the country’s worst police
departments– which is now using these horrific murders to maneuver out
of complying with the Department of Justice after being found to
consistently use excessive force– to be the only armed ones? Should we
really take away our ability to defend ourselves from an increasingly
authoritarian police state?
The
effort to take our ability to carry weapons away doesn’t help the
people. It serves to keep the people from fighting back. It helps to
perpetuate the oppression of a state that refuses to treat our sick,
leaves our poor high and dry, and then brutalizes the people who dare to
speak out against these abuses.
Guns aren’t the problem, the class war perpetrated by the powerful is the problem. People will keep dying until steps are taken to rectify the actual problems that plague our societies, and taking away guns won’t end it.
Guns aren’t the problem, the class war perpetrated by the powerful is the problem. People will keep dying until steps are taken to rectify the actual problems that plague our societies, and taking away guns won’t end it.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment. Please visit again soon!