Gun
Control
Few
areas of discussion are more divisive and provoke stronger reactions than the
current debate about gun control and the legal status of firearms in the United
States. A partly subjective debate about
the interpretation and limits of the 2th amendment to the
Constitution seems never ending with few chances of compromise on the
horizon. After the horrific events of
Sandy Hook, Aura, and other tragic shootings, the call for gun control in the
United States is perhaps nearing an apex.
In the spirit of this series of essays, I will argue that the current
gun control debate within the United States does not address the core gun
control issues that affect the vast majority of people and shooting deaths
within the United States. I will argue
that the current debate does not discuss or aim to correct the fact that the
overwhelming majority of gun crimes within the US involve illegally obtained
guns, over 80%. In addition I will also
make a case for a political compromise that both the current moderate right and
left can endorse that addresses the core issues behind most shooting incidents
and specifically the shooting incidents that happen every day in America’s
inner cities. Before I continue, I would
like to make an appeal to logic and to not become beholden to anecdotal
evidence. This author believes that any
gun control measure that does not address the horrific state of illegal guns in
the United States is a pyrrhic victory at best.
The
current debate within the majority of the United States and especially our
elected leaders around the topic of gun control focuses on creating more
stringent requirements for obtaining legal firearms. After the tragedies of Aura, CO and Sandy Hook
elementary, it is easy to see why there is a strong public reaction towards
these measures. After all, each incident
involved a deranged individual, possibly suffering from mental health issues,
who utilized legally purchased guns to devastating effect. A national gun registry, limits on ammunition
containers[1], more
extensive background checks, and longer waiting periods may affect those
seeking to do harm to others who decide to obtain their firearms legally. If only the majority of crimes involving
firearms occurred with legally obtained guns.
The sad reality is that over 80% of crimes involving guns occur with
illegally obtained guns[2]. Therefore, when one takes a series stab at
curtailing gun crimes in the United States, a policy that only focuses on
illegal guns has the potential to affect at most 20% of gun crimes in the
United States. A national solution that
affects at most 20% of the problem can hardly be considered an adequate
solution. Further evidence is given by
the recent relaxation of gun control laws in Washington D.C., still the nations
harshest. For many years D.C. had one of
the highest crime rates within the United States, overall and involving
firearms. In the first year after
Washington D.C. residents were allowed to purchase hand guns, there was one
single recorded shooting involving a legally purchased gun. There was no discernable increase in crimes
involving guns that could be attributed to the lifting of Washington D.C.’s
previous firearms ban.
Another important
consideration when crafting a well thought out national policy to decrease gun
crimes should be how the plan is viewed and considered in the media as
well. We should not correlate greater
media attention of certain types of gun crimes with a notion of prevalence or
frequency of those types of crimes. Mass
shootings of movie goers in Aura, CO and Sandy Hook elementary school were
horrible tragedies that rightly deserved much media attention. But because they deserved large amounts of
media attention does not mean they are the typical or the most frequently
occurring type of gun crime and while many people died in each incident, it
does not mean that the majority of gun deaths happen in this particular type of
gun crime, mass shootings. The great
media attention distorts our perspective somewhat from the reality of each situation. While Aura and Sandy Hook were terrible
tragedies, they were still relatively rare occurrences. They should never have happened, but they are
rare occurrences. Many crime statistics
report that mass shootings are actually declining in the United States. The victims in each were killed by uniquely
motivated individuals, individuals that would most likely have used other means
of destruction if firearms were made unavailable to them. Aura and Sandy Hook were not accidental
deaths from a robbery gone wrong or a gang motivated shooting, they were
planned and perpetrated by individuals with abnormal motivations and
goals.
And while Aura and
Sandy Hook, in the grand scheme of gun crimes, were rare events, every single
day children and young adults are being killed by illegally obtained guns in
America’s inner cities. Why are we not
as outraged by this daily occurrence of death in our inner cities? Perhaps we have become acculturated to it,
that we are no longer shocked into action.
The vast majority of shootings in our inner cities involve illegally
obtained guns. The average mafia member,
gangbanger, or cartel member could not pass many background checks required for
legal purchase of firearms. Therefore a
national solution must focus on and address illegally obtained firearms as well
as unregulated loopholes such as gun shows and outdated laws in order to
curtail the gun violence that is killing people every single day in America’s
inner cities. Focusing on limiting
access to guns by those who seek guns through illegal channels will not prevent
criminals from obtaining guns.
Given that the vast
majority of gun crimes involve illegally obtained firearms, I believe a
politically viable solution for both major parties exists that will also tackle
the largest portion of gun crimes in the United States. Those on the left that advocate for a gun
control policy which incorporates greater limits on access to firearms obtained
legally, should have very little, if any, opposition to legislation tackling
illegal firearms. Those on the right who
advocate gun owner rights for legal gun owners should provide very little if
any opposition as well. By removing illegal
guns which account for over 80% of gun crimes, the United States is decreasing
the overall destruction and loss of life caused by guns, which is the stated
goal of enacting gun control legislation of those on the left. By removing illegal guns, the United States
is being tough on crime by depriving criminals of the most common weapon of
deadly force and decreasing gun crimes which paint all guns, including legal
guns, in a highly negative light, the aim of contemporary conservative
agendas. Any compromise between the left
and right political factions in the United States will have to center on a
common ground, built by small concessions on each side. Those on the left will have to abandon their
desire for removing legal guns from society.
If a person is a law abiding citizen, who can pass a background check,
they should have the right to own gun.[3] The left will have to grant the rights of law
abiding citizens who can pass a background check to own guns. Those on the right will have to accept
limitations on illegally purchased guns and gun loopholes, aimed at individuals
ability to purchase firearms illegally, not legal firearm purchases. To achieve the aim of placing limitations on
illegal firearm purchases, the right will have to accept laws limiting the
behavior and access to illegal firearms and greater regulation of firearm
dealers including gun shows. Admittedly,
given the current political climate this may be difficult to say the
least. The right has showed an extreme
unwillingness to compromise on any aspect of gun control, even gun control
focused on illegal firearms. The
tradeoff between left and right will be thus; the right accepts greater
regulation and requirements on the gun industry in exchange for protections of
legal gun owners, the undeniable right of law abiding citizens to own
firearms. Under this agreement, the
right acquiesces to gun regulation focused on illegally obtained firearms in
exchange for the left agreeing to draw the line with illegally obtained
firearms, the right wins the right to own firearms, which is what they claim is
the reason they are fighting the left tooth and nail. Also, focusing on illegal firearms aligns
with the rights desire to be ‘tough’ on crime and eliminates the gun
crime. I believe illegal guns to be the
most likely avenue, within the current gun debate, the right may be willing to
regulate. Under this agreement, the left
is allowed to pass legislation limiting illegally obtained guns, the guns
involved in over 80% of gun crimes, saving thousands of lives annually, the
left’s stated reason for pursuing gun control.
I believe this basic compact will be necessary to move forward. Focusing on illegal guns is not only the most
effective way to decrease gun violence in the United States, but also the most
politically feasible as well.
Within the guise of
regulating the gun industry, there are a few specific areas of concern I would
like to call attention to and elaborate on; gun shows, unlicensed dealers, and
loopholes in gun selling laws. First,
proper regulation of gun shows should be of paramount priority, specifically
the regulation of unlicensed gun dealers who sell weapons at these shows. Gun shows are ill regulated and provide an
easy route for those wishing to purchase guns outside of the legal system. Guns obtained illegally at gun shows also
provided the bulk of firearms used by Mexican drug cartels in Mexico, which
means that illegal American guns were used in the killing of tens of thousands
of Mexicans during the drug wars between Mexican drug cartels. Gun shows either need to be properly
monitored and regulated or shut down entirely.
Proper regulation of gun shows and the unlicensed venders who find a
home in gun shows will greatly reduce the flow illegal guns into the hands of
criminals.
Many states have
loopholes in their gun laws that allow for guns to be sold to individuals who
under normal circumstances would not be able to purchase guns. For example many states have a loophole that
specifies that if a gun store is going out of business they may sell guns to
whoever they wish regardless of existing laws.
We need to close these loopholes.
In a similar fashion we need to enact serious penalties for breaking
these new laws and engaging in the unlicensed and unregulated sale of
firearms. Ultimately the United States needs
to create a properly regulated market for the buying and selling of guns. A market where responsible law abiding
citizens have the ability to purchase guns and criminals are prevented from
obtaining guns and their deadly potential should be the general goal of those
overseeing a regulated market. In order
to achieve a properly functioning regulated market the US must make gun sales
by unlicensed dealers illegal and crack down on those dealers that
persist. Authorities should also crack
down on the sale of guns by pawn shops and other secondary markets.
Another option could be
the creation of a national or statewide gun registry. We currently require and have a registry for
cars, why not one for guns. Vehicular
deaths far outpace gun deaths annually in the United States. We also require citizens to obtain basic
credentials for operating a motor vehicle, a driver’s license; so that other
drivers know each person has passed certain criteria for safe driving. Perhaps one needs a license to operate a gun. A basic set of guidelines that need to be
met, proper usage procedures and safe storage information perhaps could be
obtained in order to operate a gun. It
would not illegal to own a gun, but to properly utilize one without a license. We have licenses for cars and they do not
infringe on the rights of individuals to own weapons, neither does a
registry. We restrict criminals from
voting, so there is a president for the suspension of certain civil
rights. We also keep track of criminals
after they have been paroled, when they have supposedly paid their debt to
society. What this last point is getting
at is that there is a precedent for placing restrictions on the rights of some
individuals. So placing restrictions on
criminals from obtaining guns has a precedent.
In my opinion, most of
the debate around gun control in the United States is a false debate. Those advocating on each side of the debate
are motivated more by ideology and ideological purity than finding a pragmatic
solution to save the lives of Americans who are killed every year by gun
violence. A pragmatic solution that
works to deprive criminals of guns by shutting down secondary markets is the
most effective solution. By going after
illegally obtained guns, the United States will be going after guns involved in
over 80% of gun crimes. The pragmatic
central elements of each of the two main political parties can find a
politically acceptable solution to the gun debate in the United States. By focusing more on a pragmatic solution that
address the real core issues of the gun debate, the United States can create a
safer country that also respects the individual rights of gun owners.
[1]
Upon inspection, this seems to be an arbitrary restriction. For example, removing 9 round clips in
exchange for 7 round clips, seems an arbitrary distinction. What is to stop a person from buying two 7
round clips?
[2]
Illegally obtained – referring to guns obtained through secondary markets: gun
shows, pawn shops, unlicensed dealers, personal sales, thefts, etc.
[3]
Guns are a force equalizer. The physical
attributes of the user are relegated to secondary importance one they are
wielding a gun. There are several safety
and societal implications of the force equalizing capacity of guns. One being, they do allow for women to achieve
parity with men, where without a gun, a women is at a distinct physical
disadvantage against a man wishing to do her harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment