Ever since the tragic events that took place at Sandy Hook
Elementary School the gun control debate has taken a prominent place in the
news, social media, and in public policy debates. Given what has transpired I think a healthy
review of our national stance on gun control is warranted. Now, don’t mistake this as a call to disarm
America or create greater restrictions. I’ve
made this statement because I find it irresponsible to assume that policies don’t
need review or amendment over time. What
worked twenty years ago probably isn’t as applicable today, and regardless of
which direction we take it’s beneficial to have periodic debate on subjects
such as this.
For any of you who have read my blog you know how I
feel about the limitation of personal freedoms.
As I stated in my Prologue and Same Sex Marriage entries I don’t believe
the government has any right to legislate how I live my life beyond its function to protect the safety and freedom of myself and the citizens of this
great country. What makes the gun
control debate so tricky is that safety and personal freedoms come in direct
conflict. This becomes a discussion on
the right balance of the two rather than a statement that both must be
upheld. As usual, I don’t believe the
answer lies at either extreme, but rather at a reasonable middle ground.
First and foremost, let us all remember that the 2nd
amendment directly, through Supreme Court interpretation and further legislation
upholds our right to bear arms with certain limitations. Fundamentally, I agree that Americans should
have the right to own firearms. I
believe in my right to choose to own a gun in order to protect myself, my
family, and my property from those who wish to commit crimes against me. I choose not to utilize that right as I do
not own a gun; however, I do believe I should have the choice to make that
decision.
In the pursuit of explaining this stance there are a couple key
points of that I’d like to address: why
banning guns won’t work, that there should be a limit on how much gun a person
should be allowed to own, and how I feel we could reasonably regulate my view
of legal gun ownership.
I think a fundamentally flawed argument that many Americans
make is that we should just ban guns, because if nobody has them then we’re all
safer. The reality that should be pretty
obvious to everyone is that just because you make something illegal does not
mean it goes away. We’ve been fighting a
war on drugs for decades, and after god knows how many billions of dollars spent
and lives lost I’m confident that anyone reading this article could get their
hands on an illegal narcotic simply by making a few phone
calls. As such, by banning guns I
believe we’re likely going to accomplish little more than to increase the size
of the black market. Moving even more to
the extreme the government could shut down every gun manufacturer in this
country and I’d argue that we’ll just become an even bigger importer of illegal
arms. In short, guns are going to be
available no matter what laws we pass.
We also must keep in mind that criminals who would steal and
murder aren’t going to give considerable though to whether or not the gun they
need is legal or illegal. Why? Well because they are criminals, and criminals commit crimes to further their own end. In fact, I’d
be willing to bet that most violence committed through the use of firearms is committed using a weapon that is illegally obtained. So, by
banning guns what have you accomplished?
You’ve disarmed those law abiding citizens who are the least likely to
use their gun illegally, and furthermore you’ve left them defenseless against
those who would. Furthermore, can you
imagine the gall of an armed thief who knew that he was walking into a store or
a home where the owner had no means of defending himself? In short, if you revoke the 2nd
amendment you’re likely doing little to limit the availability of weapons to
would-be criminals, creating a larger and more lucrative black market, and
leaving law abiding citizens more exposed to becoming victims.
With the afore stated points in mind I now need to take a
step back towards center and state that I don’t believe the right to own guns
is applicable to all types of firearms. With
that said there’s a very valid counter argument to my opinion. The 2nd amendment allows for gun
ownership as part of a militia, and given the circumstances of the time it is
certainly reasonable to assume that this would be in defense of individual
liberties against a “tyrannical” government. Reasonably speaking, what you would need to defend yourself against the state
is the heavy stuff. A pistol or a
shotgun is not going to do a lot of good when the National Guard comes pounding
on your door with M16’s. However, this
is where I think common sense needs to take hold. There is a much greater risk to the general
public of an ill-intentioned person legally stockpiling heavy weapons than of the
federal government illegally invading your home to dispossess you of your
property and liberty. In the end, I do
believe in this instance that the risk to society outweighs the right of the
individual to defend himself.
Finally, in order to have a legitimate discussion on gun control
I believe we must discuss who should be allowed to possess firearms and how we
regulate said ownership. All the great philosophy
in the world is pretty meaningless unless we can actually apply the logic in
real life. With regards to WHO should be
allowed to own a gun I believe that if you’re convicted of a felony or a
violent crime you should be on the outside looking in. Referring back to prior points we want to
avoid arming dangerous criminals.
Regarding age, and this is another topic for another day, if we feel
that 18 is the age a person becomes and adult and can join the military and
defend their country then I feel that they are mature enough to buy a hand
gun. Now of course the tricky part is
the HOW. I don’t think that guns of any
sort should be sold without a cursory background check that should only take a
day or two to complete. If that means
missing your hunting trip because Wal-Mart can’t sell you a deadly weapon right
out of the case that seems like an acceptable trade-off to risking the arming
of a criminal. Furthermore, assuming semi-automatic
or automatic weapons are legal in your state I believe that you should be
required to undergo extensive background checks, psychological screenings, and
training if you wish to own one.
Last of all, I believe some acknowledgement that there’s
inherent context in this discussion with regards to Sandy Hook is important. Beyond the incredible tragedy of twenty-seven
killed, twenty of whom were children, this disaster has made for a very unique circumstance
in the gun control debate. The reason
why is that no amount of traditional gun control would likely have changed the
outcome in any meaningful way. The
reality is that whether he was using a M16, AR15, or 9mm hand gun the extent of
the damage would have almost certainly been the same. I think that’s why revocation of 2nd
amendment rights has jumped to the forefront of this debate. The argument
is that the only way we could have avoided this tragedy is if there weren’t any
guns whatsoever. However, referring back
to my prior points I don’t believe any measure of gun control would have
stopped this horrible person from doing what he did. He was sick and motivated, and even if it
wouldn’t have been as simple he would have found the means to commit these awful
murders. Therein lies an important point
that I believe should be considered as the left and right alike engage in this
debate: sometimes there isn’t a way of
preventing once in a lifetime tragedies.
As such, I would urge any and all to approach this discussion as a
means to try and find the best outcome for this country, not to try and find
the solution for what happened at Sandy Hook.
In the end, it's true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and we need to ensure we balance the right of Americans to defend themselves while ensuring that those who mean to do us harm cannot easily use guns as a means of harming the innocent.
I commented when I read it, but I guess it didn't post. basically, I think it's a good post, but a couple points:
ReplyDeletefew, if any, are calling for a ban of all guns. most advocates for gun control adovocate for policies supported by approximately 80% of gun owners.
secondly, criminals often have easy access to guns through "straw purchasers" - people who legally obtain guns, usually dozen or more at a time, and then dump them into criminal circles for a nice profit - still legal, since private party sales can happen that way and the seller can plead ignorance to criminal behavior. Just like many guns in Arizona are bought by people on welfare with $10,000 cash, because a crime ring gave them the cash to buy the guns and Arizona has particularly lax laws.
A few, common sense, laws would go a long way to installing some good control over gun purchases.
As for the particular tragedy, CT has an interesting law that allows confiscation of weapons for up to a year if certain concerns are reported. It may not have prevented this tragedy, but it certainly is useful in preventing others. And I think people who believe the same amount of damage could be caused with a 9mm handgun, with limited magazine, as a .223 caliber bushmaster - i think those people really don't understand the gun that was used. Few other guns can exact the damage this gun does. Parents buried children then most likely couldn't recognize to identify, which is why they were IDd with photos. I also don't think there are serious calls for revocation of the 2nd amendment. Maybe some people are out there saying that, but nearly all are simply calling for more sensible controls, or, the "well regulated" part of the amendment that the SCOTUS has repeatedly emphasized in its decisions.
Finally, guns don't kill people without a person operating them (except in a few, extreme mishaps), but guns were designed for one purpose: kill. Those who don't understand that or choose to ignore it should never be allowed near one, in my humble opinion. And I'm not anti gun. I'm sitting in a house with 10 guns right now.
Email Comment Received, Part I:
ReplyDeleteFirst, factual issues with the post that need to be addressed. Second, responses to Kevin. Finally, my thoughts relating to the post.
Please do not assume that the following clarifications are meant as undermining the merit of the article. They are not to enhance or diminish the value of the message but merely make some important factual distinctions that may be slightly misunderstood by the author.
Most importantly: you better not ever buy a gun to defend your property because you'll go to jail the rest of your life. Property is, under absolutely no circumstances, defensible with the use of deadly force. It is the one thing that criminal law across all jurisdictions in this country holds true and is very important to the statement that one should be able to own a gun to defend "[your]self, [your] family's, and [your] property." Only 2 of those are true, and genuinely, I think we all agree should be true.
Secondly, The second amendment does not allow the ownership of firearms for the purposes of defending ourselves against the government only. The second amendment, like every other drop of ink spent on the Constitution, does not say what it says in fact, nor what people reading that text may believe it to mean. The SCOTUS has altered the meaning of every word in that document 17 times over and although admittedly the 2nd amendment is amongst the least judicially scrutinized amendments to the Constitution (only being implied to the states recently) you're just plain old allowed to own a gun for any lawful reason. So don't worry everyone in Texas, just shooting for fun is covered too. See, we have laws against killing people, they cover the use of any instrument used intentionally in the course thereof.
Finally, the last of my factual distinctions, the post dances a tight line around limiting a right based upon psychiatric evaluations. This is the least of these, but I question the author to truly analyze what it would mean to allow governmental psychiatric evaluations for anything short of civil commitment, because there is a reason it doesn't exist, nobody would ever submit and to make it compulsory would be so unconstitutional that Barack Obama will strike a comma of regulation before it happens.
Email Comment Received, Part II:
ReplyDeleteNow, there's Mr. Brady's thoughtful comment. I don't even know what your 80% statistic up there about gun nuts agreeing with gun haters is, but I bet its bullshit. And further to under-theorized "truths": you're brief comment about common sense laws. . . enlighten me. What's common sense about any law limiting any personal freedom in this fine nation? Because Atonin Scalia himself would strip bare to put his robe on you if you can come up with that legislation.
Next point I take issue with, let us recall: "I think people who believe the same amount of damage could be caused with a 9mm handgun, with limited magazine, as a .223 caliber bushmaster - i think those people really don't understand the gun that was used." Poor construction aside, this wasn't a war with trained killers. it was a man against young children for the most part. I would argue he could have committed unthinkable horrors of equal proportions with nothing more than was in the classroom itself. But for fending off seven adults who, regardless of its being seemingly compulsory, bravely, and likely knowingly, gave themselves trying to save innocent young people to whom their care was charged, there was never a contest. Adults against children is never fair, and bragging about your knowledge of a Bushmaster aside, your point has absolutely no merit. Average magazine for a Bushmaster, FYI, roughly only 4-14 rounds more than most handguns, and almost any gun can be modified to take a magazine of any reasonable size. Not like you didn't know that. and 16x2 is 32, seriously?
But, one redeeming part of your comment, I love your Ct. Law. I will independently check that one out, but it seems feasible and fantastic. Other legislation aimed at an objective standard for identifying crazies is a winner in my book and the good little state legislative assistant who thought that one up deserves a big bonus.
And lastly (seriously, I'll stop typing eventually) the post. I think, like Kevin, that you over-categorize the argument against as an overall ban. It really isn't the complaint. Here is what it is. There is no argument, its just anger. And I'm not arguing against being angry, I'm angry as hell about S.H.E.S. But an argument involves a point. The discussion out there has no point, its just RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE. nobody knows what to do because we're mad as hell. And we should be. But, again, here's an idea: internalize. You know who has the power to stop these tragedies? everyone offended by them. Stop looking to the legislature for your morality. Look at yourself and your family. The head coach of Winthrop:
Per Gallup, 26% of Americans favor an outright ban on hand guns (before S.H.E.S.).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx
Given that 50%-55% of Americans support President Obama's gun control recommendations that would be roughly half of gun control backers; this is not an insignificant amount.
Kevin, your comment regarding the .223 bushmaster is way off base. The point I noted was that the "Assault Style Weapon" was not an enabler. This individual did not shoot his way through armed security, he walked into a classroom and murdered children. Just b/c the Bushmaster itself is different than a hand gun doesn't mean it in any way affected the outcome.
Per the last paragraph of part II I'll note that I completely agree. Whether we are debating a full or partial ban on guns the sentiment is entirely the same: that this enthusiasm for gun control is an emotional reaction and isn't likely to solve any real problems. This lends itself to the "when you're a hammer..." concept, which is to say that since it is a legislator's job to write laws they try solve the problem by creating new statutes. In short, and this goes back to multiple prior posts, stop trying to legislate morality. This country has a huge problem in that it would rather restrict behavior rather than teach it.