The Dysfunction of the Gun Control Debate

A few days ago, a father of one of the children killed in the Parkland school shooting voiced his emotion and rage at President Trump, but then said that he didn’t favor gun restrictions; instead he wanted the school to be made a safe place.  He said the battle over gun restrictions was for another time.

Many on the Right are talking about how to make the schools safe by having a police presence in the schools, arming teachers, security checks upon entering, and other measures.  The idea is to turn schools into a safe place by turning them into secure zones.

This is a bad idea for at least two reasons.  First, the idea is dysfunctional.  It would have a devastating impact on the character of schools.  Second, it would not change the overall problem created by the prevalence of guns.  School shootings may be the ones with the greatest public interest and visibility, but individual shootings far outnumber those.  Turning schools into a secure zone would protect children from this threat while in school, but it will not protect them or anyone outside that zone.

It is dysfunctional because it’s another step in turning America into an armed camp.  Do you really want to see police parading around in every town in the country looking for potential terrorists?  I’ve seen that in some other countries in the past, and it is not a comforting feeling.  Do you want your children to grow up, learn, and play in an atmosphere more similar to a prison than to a school?

No, the only answer to reducing gun violence, both in the schools and in the general public, is to strengthen restrictions on who can own guns, strengthen background checks, and prohibit the sale of automatic rifles like the AK-15 or bump stocks to the general public.

It is important to state that both I and most if not all gun control advocates believe that hunting is a legitimate sport and that people must be allowed to own appropriate firearms to participate in that sport.  Contrary to the conspiracy fears fostered by the NRA, nothing proposed in the gun control debate goes against the interests of hunters or sportsmen.  The rifles they use would not be impacted by such laws and their ownership would not be impacted.  And gun control advocates have no interest in taking those firearms away from them in the future.

For the NRA to invoke the 2nd Amendment in the fight against any and all gun control is absurd.  Forgetting about whether the 2nd Amendment really means that each person has the constitutional right to bear arms as opposed to saying that local governments can maintain militias, at the time the amendment was written, the firearms in question were muskets and flint-lock pistols.

If the founders had envisioned an AK-15 or bump stocks, do you in your wildest imagination think that they would give each person a right to own such an instrument of destruction?  No.

Also, regarding the recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment granting a constitutional right for individuals to bear arms, this is a base misreading of the amendment.  The question has always been, what is the sense of the clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”  In the past, it was held to be subordinate to the natural reading of the wording which was to protect the existence of a “well-regulated militia.”

When the constitution was written, localities and states did not have standing armed forces. When the need existed, they sent a call out to the populace for soldiers and they brought their own firearms.  Thus they had to have the right to own firearms in order for the militia call-up to be effective.

We don’t live in that world anymore.  And so there is no need for a constitutional right to bear arms.  Instead, it should just be a right subject to the control of the law.  

But even if one argues that there is a constitutional right, constitutional rights are not absolute, they are always subject to reasonable restrictions to protect the greater good.  And restrictions on gun ownership, background checks, and the type of guns available to the general public are certainly “reasonable restrictions to protect the greater good.”  The vast majority of Americans think so, even Republicans.  The only real force on the other side is the NRA, and those who have fallen under the sway of its fake fears.

We Can't Change People, But We Can Control Access to Guns

Why is gun control essential?  Because people are people; many suffer and lash out, some become violent. We can't control people's psychology and what they do or say.  But we can control the availability of weapons that enable them to kill and injure.

The tragedy in Orlando raises many questions, the most basic being whether there is any end or limit to man’s inhumanity to man.  And with this term, I’m not just referring to horrific acts of mass violence such as the Orlando shootings but also the violence that occurs every day, whether randomly inflicted on strangers or directed at someone the perpetrator has a grudge against.  Based on the evidence we see or hear on almost a daily basis, one has to say, no.

Although in posts I have set forth a way to end this epidemic of inhumanity … to make people humane again … it is not a very practical expectation (see “Creating a Safer World for Our Children.”).  No, we must take it as fact that there really is no end or limit to man’s inhumanity to man.

If we can’t stop people from being inhumane, then our only option if we want to end the suffering caused by these acts of inhumanity is to control the tools they use to inflict harm.  (For the purpose of this post, I’m going to limit the discussion to acts of inhumanity that involve physical violence.  The cruel psychological violence that people inflict on each other on a daily basis is also inhumane - see the above referenced post - but that's another matter.)

When we look at the statistics, we see that in the United States guns are the weapon of choice in physically violent acts:  67.7 percent of all murders, 41.3 percent of robberies and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults were conducted with guns.  Each year more than 30,000 people are killed by firearms in the US (about 1/3 are murders, the rest suicides), compared to less than 200 in Canada and the countries of Europe.

Without any question, if we want to end the suffering caused by all this violence we must get rid of the guns that are so readily available.  But what to do about the opposing claim of gun rights and the newly-Supreme-Court-declared 2nd Amendment individual right to bear arms?

People definitely have the right to guns used for hunting and self-defense.  Until recent times that meant a traditional rifle for hunting and some type of pistol for self-defense.  People were able to hunt very successfully with their rifles … if anything it was more of a pure sport … and people were able to defend themselves.

The newer type of automatic guns and assault weapons that are available, with large capacity clips, have added absolutely nothing to the ability to hunt or to defend oneself.  It may give a hunter a bigger charge to be handling these newer guns, but that’s no reason to make them available given the harm that they can inflict.  And automatic pistols have not been shown to be more effective for self-defense that a regular pistol.  It just gives the person a psychological feeling of greater safety.

So, I would argue that given that we cannot change man’s inhumanity to man, all automatic weapons, whether guns or rifles, should be taken off the general market.  They should only be available to the military, police, and others who need such high-powered weapons in the performance of their responsibilities.

Regular guns and rifles should continue to be available to the general public as they are now, with of course appropriate background checks, etc.  All loopholes should be closed.  No one should be able to by a firearm without the required background check.

I know that one cannot expect to stop gun violence by taking all but regular rifles and pistols off the general market, even with effective background checks.  People can still turn violent and those firearms can still be used to great effect in ways other than hunting and self-defense.  But given the place of guns in American culture … the United States is not England or other countries where gun ownership is rare and traditionally strictly controlled … that’s the most that we can expect our government and people to accommodate for the greater good.

But the fact that gun control measures will not eliminate firearm violence is no argument against taking those steps.  Fewer deaths and injuries, especially from these mass shootings, is better than things continuing unchanged.

The NRA says that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  And while that’s undeniably true … the core problem is the inhumanity of man … it is also true that without automatic weapons fewer people would be killed or suffer grievous injury.

The Right to Life v the Right to Own Guns

The cornerstone of our democracy, of our constitution and its Bill of Rights, is the principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”  The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms, stems from this combination of the right to life and liberty and the government’s responsibility to create a system where that is reasonably possible.

If you asked most people what is one of the most important ingredients in leading a happy life, they would say being secure ... whether it’s secure in ones job, ones financial situation, or ones relationships, or being able to go to the theater or send your children to school without worrying whether you/they will be massacred.  The government can’t do much about job security or your financial situation and nothing regarding your relationships.  But physical security is one area where the government has a clear responsibility and ability.  Whether it’s the local police force or the national defense, an acknowledged primary role of government is to insure that people can go about their lives without worrying for their physical safety.

What happens when one right, here the right to physical security, bumps into another right, here the right to bear arms?  The courts have been clear that none of the Bill of Rights is absolute ... not even the right of free speech.  If the government has a compelling reason, such as protecting large numbers of people from harm, it can regulate these rights so long as it does so in the least restrictive manner.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the latest Supreme Court decision that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right to bear arms is indeed the correct interpretation.  (I say let’s assume because that decision was the first time in the court’s history that it interpreted the amendment in that way.} As already stated, that does not mean that the government cannot restrict that right if it has a compelling interest and the opinion explicitly acknowledges this, giving several examples of existing or possible regulatory restrictions.  The implication is that even the current conservative majority on the Court would find that protecting the safety of the general populace is a compelling interest.

What are the statistics on gun deaths?  In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents. Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period. In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Clearly, guns deaths and injury are a very serious national safety and health problem.  While the massacres that have occurred in schools, shopping centers, or movie theaters grab the headlines, the volume of deaths caused by individual shootings is far greater. Given that the option of eliminating guns from the marketplace is not a realistic option, how can the government proceed in the least restrictive way, meeting its responsibility regarding public and individual safety while respecting the rights of people to own guns?

I would ask two questions.  What types of guns are not needed for either hunting or self-defense?  How best keep guns out of the hands of those who should not own them ... criminals and the mentally ill?  If the government were able to address these two issues successfully, the problem of gun violence in the United States would be greatly reduced.

The first question is easy to answer.  AK-47s and other assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols and rifles are not tools needed for hunting or self-defense.  These are weapons for murdering large numbers of people.  Yes, rifles like the AR-15 that was used in the recent Connecticut school massacre are rifles favored by many hunters and gun enthusiasts, but a semi-automatic rifle just isn’t necessary for hunting.  Sales to the public should be banned.  Sales to authorized agencies, such as the police, should be direct purchase from the manufacturer, rather than through a wholesaler, to eliminate a potential source of illegal sales.  

The second question is more difficult to answer, but there is a logical series of actions.  The first is that no firearm or ammunition sale, regardless whether at a store or at a gun show should be made without a thorough background check.  Second the data base accessed in searches needs to be improved.  Third, the penalties for the sale of guns and ammunition illegally, that is without following mandated procedures, should be severe.  The combination of these actions would not stop the flow of guns into the wrong hands, but it should greatly restrict it and sharply reduce the number of such incidents.  And they would do so without impacting the legitimate rights of citizens to own a gun or rifle for hunting or self-defense.

There is no rational reason why gun control and gun rights should be at cross-purposes.  No one who wants a firearm for a legitimate reason has anything to fear from the types of regulations I’ve suggested.  It is only the hysteria fostered by the National Rifle Association which is heavily funded by firearms manufacturers that has caused this seemingly loosing battle in Congress over gun control. It is firearms manufacturers who fear the impact of gun control on their lucrative sales, so much so that Remington has threatened to move from its birthplace in New York State if the state proceeds to enact gun control legislation.

The time is past due for the President and Senators and Congressmen from both parties to come together to enact reasonable legislation that protects the right of average American citizens to live a life free of the fear of them or their children being gunned down in a massacre.  Protect the legitimate rights of citizens to own guns for self-defense and hunting, but control the rest.  Let not the 20 children in Newtown, CT die in vain.