On Violence, Gun Control, and the 2nd Amendment

The question of gun control and the implications on possible infringement upon 2nd Amendment rights begs the question on a deeper social issue: Can we, and if so, how, can we eliminate the notion of violence from the collective consciousness, or rather, what does it take to shift social thinking toward honoring and respecting the dignity as well as physical integrity of others? Some argue it is a matter of mental illness- but what are the boundaries of such illness and at what point does violence become integrated into social norms? At some point it becomes a murky debate on conflicting entitlements...the entitlement to gun ownership, the entitlement to being a full participant in society despite a violent history, or a history of mental disturbances, often classified as "disability"... These are the difficult questions that society faces as we contemplate the roots of violence, and what may make one society or culture more violent than another. Have we as society, either through culture or policy, normalized violence, and what can we do to take steps to create a more harmonious society of respect, for the freedom and well-being of others? 

It is no accident that many terrorists, whether domestic or foreign, committing mass shootings or terrorist attacks have been linked to a history of domestic violence in one form or another, either through exposure as a young child and/or eventually becoming a perpetrator. Through inadequate laws such as difficult-to-enforce restraining orders or court-ordered exposure through shared custody of children, even the awarding of children to abusers, states often fail to protect victims of domestic violence from their perpetrators. Through such means, albeit laws exist on the books, society effectively normalizes violence in the home, sometimes with tragic consequences not only for the immediate victims but for collective society. In order to address violence, the roots of violence must be addressed, and often we see that this violence can be traced back to the home environment, perpetuated from one generation to another.

On a similar note, many gun control laws exist- whether they have been adequate in protecting the public from guns begotten illicitly or otherwise is another matter. Nevertheless, some moderation in gun laws, such as the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban, may offer some relief to the tragic onslaught of mass shootings that have plagued the US in recent years, in particular in US schools. 

Additionally, rather alarming are the calls for violence in partisan debate, becoming increasingly normalized in political rhetoric, as protests shift from peaceful demonstrations to high-tension and increasingly violent confrontations. This  normalization of violence as a means of political expression should not be acceptable by any means, and it is up to political leadership to take the responsibility not to fan the flames amongst their followers, and certainly not condone violence as a means of expression by any such group of perpetrators on any side of the debate. 

Clarifying the definitions of terrorism vs insurgency

Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians as a means of control by organized non-state entities or individuals.

Insurgency is the use of violence against government/state entities in an attempt to attain political objectives, including a complete takeover of the said government/state.

While groups may have overlapping characteristics of both terrorist & insurgency groups, a key distinction is whether civilians are a strategic target or collateral damage in the targeting of a government/state. The former would qualify a group as terrorist in nature, while the latter would be that of an insurgency.

While some would categorize some governments as terrorist, state entities by definition have sovereign authority to use military force to establish order, and so the use of violence itself would not per se make them terrorist. In cases where a state uses excessive force on civilians, international definitions on mass violations of human rights, crimes against humanity, and genocide would more aptly apply.