Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, October 24, 1994 TAG: 9410250012
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CRAIG V. VanSANDT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
According to President Clinton, one primary reason the decision was made to go into Haiti was to end widespread human-rights abuses by the Haitian military against pro-Aristide citizens. In other words, our government identified an overt, concerted effort by one group in Haiti to kill and maim another. Looking closer to home, isn't the same thing occurring within our own borders every day? Granted, our country's violence isn't perpetrated by the government against dissenters as it is in Haiti, but there is an overt, organized and concerted effort to inflict pain, repress citizenry and kill opposition.
Who are those suffering in the United States? No, I'm not referring to Clinton supporters suffering at the hands of Rush Limbaugh. I'm talking about law-abiding citizens who choose not to arm themselves to the teeth and engage in criminal activities, most notably drug usage and drug dealing. While pro-democratic forces in Haiti have suffered at the hands of Raoul Cedras' followers, law-abiding citizens of all walks (and all political views) are cringing from pain inflicted by U.S. criminals.
The single most important factor in these human-rights abuses is the criminals' possession of guns and willingness to use them against an un-armed public. When one side of a feud has superior firepower, there is little chance for the other side to protect itself. So it is in both Haiti and the United States. The obvious way to equalize the two actions is either to arm the one group or disarm the other. The right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed in the United States, and seemingly further ensured by the National Rifle Association, so we could certainly provide weapons for all. However, we cannot provide or demand the willingness to use these weapons, even for self-defense. It seems much more logical to disarm the criminal element.
If our government is willing to spend money and risk our soldiers' lives to protect Haitian citizens from armed thugs, why not here? U.S. forces landed on Haitian soil, watched one fatal confrontation without interfering, and then proceeded to literally take the weapons out of the hands of Gen. Cedras and his band of merry men. Why not do the same thing on our soil?
Certainly, the cause of the violence in the two countries is different (political vs. criminal), but the effect on victims is remarkably similar. Dead is dead, right? Certainly, the incident rate is high enough in both places to merit attention. The percentage of those affected may be higher in Haiti, but in absolute numbers those killed and maimed by criminals in our country is far greater.
Why not use our police and military forces to disarm drug dealers and other criminals? Of course, there is the constitutional issue of the right to bear arms. But what about the victims' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I have it on excellent authority that it's extremely difficult to chase down happiness with an Uzi sticking in your ear, or a bullet from a .44 Magnum lodged in your brain. If our police can confiscate weapons already used in a crime, does it seem such a far stretch to allow them to take them before a crime is committed? Until we, as a society, are willing and able to treat the causes of criminal violence, we must treat the symptoms. I don't advocate a total police state, but with reasonable suspicion and/or just cause, we must put the power of confiscation in law enforcement's hands.
With our current attitude of distrust of government at all levels, and of the armed forces that maintain order (including police forces, state patrols, the FBI, Army, Navy, etc.), can we allow those bodies to make the distinction between killers of humans and killers of deer? I would argue that we would be much better off by doing so. They already make this distinction several times each day, and they do a reasonably good job of it. This is exactly what we have done in Haiti, and to my knowledge there has been no public outcry against taking the despots' weapons.
Current gun-control laws focus on trying to prevent criminals from getting their hands on new/more guns through legal avenues. While these laws probably do little or no harm, it's safe to assume that they do little to deter criminals' use of weapons, for two reasons: Many already have weapons available to them, and they can still obtain more through illegal means. In addition to preventing more weapons from getting into criminal hands, it's imperative that we confiscate those weapons they already have.
The obvious sticking point in this proposal (and rightly so) is defense of our constitutional rights, including privacy, to bear arms, due process and others. However, we currently are able to obtain search warrants to obtain evidence when there is suspicion of a crime. With a similar level of suspicion or proof, our protective forces could truly serve and protect. Perhaps I've read too many novels, but I have little doubt that our police force already knows, with virtual certainty, who the criminals are, and the extent to which they're armed. Shades of the Branch Davidians, you say? Would you be so gun-shy if the parties involved were Haitian paramilitary units or Colombians involved in drug trafficking?
I suggest that we demand the same level of protection from our government that our neighbors in Haiti have received. Let's allow our police and military to become crime-prevention forces rather than coroners.
Craig V. VanSandt of Bent Mountain is a vice president at a regional bank in Roanoke.
by CNB