Conservative rhetoric limits progress in gun control debate

Diren Dede was “garage hopping” — a suburban teenage shenanigan involving sneaking into open garages to loot for random objects — when he landed himself in Markus Kaarma’s garage in Montana. 

Seconds later, a slew of bullets from Kaarma’s shotgun killed the 17-year-old German exchange student.

Kaarma’s rapid fire, which triggered criminal charges against him, reflects the counterproductive nature of the “stand-your-ground” law, which has become a fixture of firearm legislation in traditionally conservative states over the last five years.

So, let’s talk, starting with what the gun control debate is really about. It’s not about a Democratic versus Republican agenda. It’s not about angry words or red faces on the verge of screaming. It’s not even about Dede. The gun control debate is about fear.  

While only one of many unfortunate symbols of the debate on gun control, the case involving Kaarma and Dede exemplifies the restrictions that our fear-induced debates have placed on our potential for progress as a nation.

Dede’s case sheds a glaring light on the effect these politics of fear have had on state legislation. The “stand-your-ground” law — which allowed Kaarma to open fire without first observing any obvious signs of threat in his garage — enables the use of force for self-defense without an obligation to retreat first. 

The logic behind this law is reasonable: the best offense is a good defense. But it doesn’t leave much room for judgment on whether or not your attacker is an actual threat. In the case of Dede and Kaarma, Dede was not the armed burglar Kaarma expected, but rather a bored teen.

The fear that drove Kaarma to pull the trigger is synonymous to the fear that inhibits lawmakers from preventing such tragedies. 

On one hand, gun supporters fear losing their ability to protect themselves in a society riddled with crime, on the other, non-supporters fear the danger guns embody and as a whole, Americans in general fear being forced into an agreement that denies them their rights to life, liberty and property.

The only way to resolve the debate centering on gun control is to eliminate the rationale behind partisan politics. The rhetoric behind them leads constituents to believe that they have to be fearful and, therefore, are in need of protection, but not from government policy — from guns themselves. 

The NRA claims that Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2 million times per year when, in actuality, it is quite rare — 67,740 times per year, according to a report by the Violence Policy Center. Yet, being one of the largest interest groups in the United States, the NRA’s claim carries weight both politically and personally.

Montana ranks 14th in the top 20 U.S. states with the highest aggregation of gun violence. Nineteen other “stand-your-ground” states populate the rest of the list.

With states acting as independent entities, gun regulations become centered only around the personal fears of the state’s legislators and their constituents, as opposed to a rationalized approach aimed at broader security — like better police forces, for instance. 

Meanwhile, laws like the Firearm Owners Protection Act, the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act support decreased regulation in the name of personal self-defense. 

With the crime rate rising, along with the number of armed citizens, these laws continue to reflect the regressive nature political rhetoric has had on policy. This rhetoric has overemphasized the fear people should have for their neighbor and underemphasized the potential of government policy to protect them.

Therefore, continuing to adhere to the logic of paranoia is not getting us any closer to finding an overarching solution to public safety while adhering to our constitutional rights at the same time. Without uniform regulations to satisfy both ends, we will only continue to bear the national devastation that arises from cases like that of Dede and Kaarma, after which life continues to go on regardless of resolution.

Dede should have had security in knowledge that a juvenile venture, though reckless and illegal, won’t ultimately result in his death, and Kaarma should have the right to feel secure in his ability to protect his land and family. 

Neither should have found themselves shot dead or receiving death threats in the midst of judicial penalties in the endeavor to do so.