Our Rights Carry Responsibilities

The headlines continue to occur with sickening frequency.

            “Florence shooter struck 7 officers, killing 1, as they attempted to serve search warrant”

                        (Greenville News headline, October 3, 2018)

“Charlotte buys bulletproof vests to protect firefighters”

                        (Charlotte Observer headline, July 27, 2018)

            “York Co. detective dies at hospital following Tuesday’s shootout.”

                        (WCNC, January 18, 2018)

These headlines confirm that gun violence in the United States is not a distant threat.  It may not be right outside your door, but it is getting close and closer.

We have grown accustom to the sad stories.  Fifty-eight gunned down in Las Vegas.  Seventeen slain in Parkland, Florida.  All are followed by calls for prayers and condolences, but little real action occurs to enhance gun safety. 

Following the Parkland shooting, the Florida legislature did ban bump stocks, which ironically were used in the Las Vegas shooting not at Parkland, and it raised the age for purchasing a rifle to 21.  The age restriction has produced a court challenge from the National Rifle Association.

Given the constant spate of mindless gun violence, common sense would assume that government at all levels in the US would be mobilized to address the challenge. In fact, the opposite is occurring. 

Ten states have passed legislation allowing school districts to arm teachers and other staff members, including Texas where in May a shooting at Santa Fe High School left ten people dead.  School “resource officers,” frequently a euphemism for “armed guard,” are being increased in many states, although some, like South and North Carolina, are hesitating because of the cost. Some people are bothered by the idea of having more guns in schools.  

Many states have also liberalized laws related to carrying firearms in public.  At the federal level the US House passed legislation requiring all states to accept concealed carry permits from any other state regardless of how lax the latter’s requirements for such permits. So far, the US Senate has refused to go along.

No attempt is being made to address the fundamental problem---the excessive number of firearms available to the public in the United States without any idea of who has them, how lethal they might be, or under what conditions they are being secured.  And the problem will likely intensify in the future. US weapons manufacturers produced less than 3 million firearms in 2001, but in 2016 they produced 11.5 million.

The National Rifle Association and its gun industry patrons have convinced our political elites that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” granted in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits imposing reasonable restraints on who has access to firearms or what firearms will be accessible to the public.  That is an extraordinary interpretation of a “right.”

In any rational political system, but especially in a democracy, a “right” carries with it the responsibility to see that your “right” does not impinge upon other rights within the community.  Your freedom of speech for example does not allow you to slander your neighbor, nor does freedom of the press allow your local newspaper to libel you.   

Does your right to bear arms not include the responsibility to insure that the firearms you possess will not fall into the hands of someone who might use them to harm others or maybe him or herself?  Does your right to bear arms, approved in 1791, not include the responsibility to restrict some particularly lethal firearms from being available to the general public.

Does your right to own firearms without any restrictions outweigh the right of youngsters to a safe educational environment or the right of your fellow citizens to attend a movie, a concert, or a sporting event without fear?

There are legitimate reasons for individuals to have firearms.  Hunting and sports shooting are both established elements in American culture, but neither would be burdened by background checks or registration nor do they require automatic weapons.  Although statistics question the effectiveness and wisdom of having a firearm in the home, it is an understandable desire that could be accommodated and made safer with a few weapons modifications.

Uncontrollable access to firearms makes no sense in a civilized community. There is a proven correlation between the number of firearms circulating in a country and that country’s rate of gun-related deaths and injuries.

Civilian gun owners in the US possess 40 percent of the approximately 857 million firearms in the hands of civilians worldwide, more than one for every American no matter his or her age. In 2016 the US rate for violent gun deaths was 3.85 per 100,000 people, by no means the highest among all countries---think El Salvador and Honduras. The US ranks well above countries of similar socioeconomic status.  Canada for example had a gun death rate of 0.48 in 2016.

People cannot be secure in a society where no one is capable of controlling the use of violence within that society.  How are laws enforced?  How are norms for reasonable behavior established and maintained?  How do people live without fear if there are no restraints on access to or use of instruments of lethal violence? How does democracy survive?

"Anonymous" Is Not a Trust Builder

Our news media today, whether print, broadcast or social, seems to thrive on “anonymous” sources. While this may be necessary in some cases, the recent spate of articles, news reports, even books, based on unidentified sources have not been helpful.  

Even during my few years as a professional journalist, I always have been a bit skeptical of information from individuals who insisted on anonymity.  Still, as a realist about how the world works, I understand the need to resort on occasion to secret informants. But habitual employment of anonymous sources does not build trust, and the American media is already suffering a significant loss of trust among the public.

A recent poll by Gallup reveals the scale of this loss.  In answer to the question about their level of confidence in a list of institutions in American society, 40 percent of respondents indicated very little or no confidence in newspapers and 45 percent said the same of television news.  The only institutions that received comparable negative rating were the Presidency (44 percent) and Congress (48 percent).  Maybe there is some correlation.  

Providing accurate information in a timely fashion has always been the first mission of a free press in a democratic society. How well the free press does its job impacts significantly the trust enjoyed by other key institutions that are dependent upon reliable and relevant information produced by a free press.

In the modern media world of talk radio, cable news and the Internet, however, being first with a story seems often to override considerations of accuracy and relevancy. This circumstance may have played into the decision of the New York Times to run the recent op-ed essay by “Anonymous.” 

Perhaps not a wise determination.

There should be good reasons for wanting to protect the confidentiality of a source. Is the source providing information or insight not accessible by any other means? Could the revelations by the source open the door to corroborative information? What are the motives of the source? Does the source likely face significant retribution?  Could the source be seeking revenge for some slight? Is the information a diversion in order to mislead or distract?

Although the New York Times asserted that publishing the essay anonymously was “the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers,” it is not clear what that “perspective” might be. The author, “a senior official in the Trump administration,” makes special note of Donald Trump’s “amorality,” and assures readers that the president’s “worse inclinations” are being restrained by senior officials in the Trump administration.  We have read and heard such comments frequently over the last year and half. The essay does not contain any new information or insights regarding these conditions.

It is obvious that “anonymous” approves of the policies Trump advocates and wants his administration to succeed---“many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.” He (or She) labels “effective deregulation, historic tax reform and a more robust military…as “bright spots.”

While critical of Trump’s erratic leadership approach, “anonymous” wants to assure the American public “there are adults in the room.” At the same time the author takes the news media to task for casting these “unsung heroes in and around the White House” as “villains.”

After declaring the existence of “a two-track presidency,” the essay describes the dysfunctional nature of current US foreign relations, and refers to “whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25^th Amendment.”  Again, there is no new information or insight.  Apparently, the public should feel comfortable relying upon unidentified senior officials who are actively conspiring to undermine the administration, although not openly.

An anonymous essay by a senior official in any administration carries significant hazards for the author.  One by a senior official in an administration known for its dysfunction and headed by a president known for vengeful retribution seems extraordinarily perilous.  Does the message from “Anonymous” identify goals that might warrant the apparent risks?

This “senior official” could be simply suffering from a slightly guilty conscience or wanting to justify staying on board an administration stumbling towards disaster.

There is a possibility that the essay was designed to mislead or distract.  Some comments that stirred the president’s ire: “thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impluses” and “insulating…operations from his whims…;” surely were not crafted to allay Trump’s paranoia. Neither was the special reference to Senator John McCain, who Trump considered a great antagonist.

In fact, after the essay appeared, a number of Trump’s senior staff rushed to reconfirm their support of his agenda and leadership style. It would be ironic if the decision of the New York Times to publish the “Anonymous” essay enabled Trump to elicit a reaffirmation of support from his senior staff at the critical midpoint of his term of office.