On December 14, 2012, 17-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., after killing his mother. Five months earlier, on July 20, James Holmes, dressed in tactical clothing, went into a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises,” setting off tear gas and opening fire on the people in the theater. He was arrested and charged with 24 counts of first degree murder and 116 accounts of attempted murder.
Amidst the emotional stories of each victim, the heroism displayed by others and the anger aimed at the guilty, the debate on gun control has once again sparked up.
There is no doubt that guns make it easier for people to kill other people. Guns, while tools, were made with a deadly purpose. And with pro-gun Americans proclaiming the Second Amendment in the heat of this debate, it seems that politics regarding the regulation, distribution and control of firearms is an unstable, one-lane mountain highway with a thousand foot drop at the best of times.
But we believe in the Second Amendment.
A common response to this is to say something along the lines of “Well, that was intended for the militia.” And yes it is true, the Second Amendment does use the specific words “well-regulated militia” but the militia itself was a group of unprofessional citizen-soldiers that was organized by citizens for the purpose of engaging in rebel activities or to supplement the existing military. We acknowledge both to be no longer relevant or likely, as we have a large and powerful enough military with reserves of troops to never need a militia. And a rebellion, if one should ever happen, would be quelled within days, with precision and minimal collateral damage.
But the Second Amendment has other implications. Early American settlers viewed the right to arms or the right to bear arms or state militias as important for many purposes. Which of these were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, “the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.” As for today, we can see that the self defense bit is what is hot on people’s minds.
It has been demonstrated time and time again that the only thing that can effectively stop a bad person with a gun, is a good person with a gun. And we in no way whatsoever believe that an all out gun-ban would ever work or be effective. It is a common fantasy spouted of by liberals and anti-gun activists that gun bans make society safer. This could not be further from the truth.
On the gun-control debate, the topic of Australia often surfaces. Australia enacted a gun ban ten years ago that outlawed shotguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons in an attempt to reduce gun-related crime. It was seen largely as a failure and they even saw an eventual increase in gun-related crimes. Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime. If anything, they saw a rise in crime. In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault, Australia’s equivalent term for rape, increased 29.9 percent. And overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. We should learn from Australia’s example.
But there are several gun-control proposals we would like to advocate, specifically concerning easy access and assault weapons.
Most people will agree that violent criminals and mentally unstable persons should not be allowed access to guns. As it stands, there are many ways that these people can get away with obtaining weapons; at gun shows, for example, gun customers are not required to undergo a background check if they purchase from a non-licensed dealer. This is wrong.
We also believe that selling or trading firearms between private parties should be more heavily regulated. If a gun is registered in your name and if you give/sell/trade it to someone else, then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) should be aware of it. People who don’t do this or lie should be heavily penalized.
Further, in Arkansas there is very little prosecution against people who lie on forms when they buy a weapon from a licensed distributor. This too should be reformed. When people are caught lying on these forms, they need to be punished severely.
We would also like to bring up Title 2 weapons or National Firearms Act (NFA) weapons, which are certain explosives, firearms and other munitions. Currently, all a person needs to do to own one is fill out a form, send it to the ATF and pay a $200 dollar tax; if it’s categorized under “Any Other Weapon,” which includes equivalents to sawed-off shotguns and other novelty weapons like cane guns or pen guns, then it is only a $5 tax.
Violations of the NFA are currently felonies punishable up to 10 years in prison. We believe this isn’t enough. Far heavier penalties should be enforced for violating the NFA, and the fees to obtain Title 2 weapons should increase.
Another way criminals obtain weapons is theft. In Newtown, the guns he used were the shooter’s mother’s. Many criminals are arming themselves and children accidentally shooting themselves because people do not lock up their guns in a safe place.
We know, a gun for home defense will not do any good if it is locked up when a burglar or someone with murderous intent breaks into your home. But it will keep your guns out of that person’s hands, who already by his actions demonstrated that he has no regard for the law. If you are really concerned about self-defense, a Concealed Handgun Carry License allows you to carry your gun with you to most places, and you need only keep it close at hand while you are at home.
In addition to this, we believe that if a violent crime is committed with a gun registered in your name, you should be penalized for it, but not so heavily penalized if you report the gun stolen as soon as possible. As ridiculous and over-stepping as this may sound, the ATF has released statistical evidence showing that most criminals get their guns from robbing other people’s homes. If this will serve as an incentive for people to lock away their guns and effectively keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, then there should be no reason not to do this.
As far as assault weapons go, we believe they are fun to shoot and interesting weapons to collect, but that is the extent of it. It was with assault weapons that the two gunmen mentioned above killed all those people (and with some handguns). Assault weapons are made with the utilitarian purpose of killing large numbers of people and the weapons used in these cases fit the bill perfectly.
We don’t hide behind far-fetched and desperate pretensions of so-called “practical uses” when it comes to assault weapons, nor are we as paranoid or devoid of reason to believe that one day our government will transform itself into a malevolent and tyrannical entity and march down on us with guns blazing.
Others cling to their want for assault weapons because they feel that they are effective home defense weapons. If you are using an assault rifle for home defense, then you are guilty of serious negligence and you are almost deliberately endangering your neighbors and others in your home. Assault weapons use high-powered rounds that can easily penetrate flesh and go on to travel through walls at the ranges involved in a home defense situation. If you live in a suburban area, a bullet might easily travel into another person’s home and injure a neighbor. A bullet might injure someone in your home if you are not paying attention to what is behind your target.
We have also heard people say that assault rifles are great for hunting and good for putting rounds down range quickly. They might be fun to use while hunting, sure, but at long ranges they are not accurate and if you really need to put a lot of rounds down range at your target in a short amount of time, then we suggest marksmanship classes.
We also suggest you use the type of rifle actually designed for hunting game, as you might have better luck. If you have a good hunting rifle, all you need to do is buy one box of ammo, use half of it to sight in your scope, and take three rounds with you in the field. If you take your time and are a decent shot, you will only need one bullet. If you are afraid of being mauled by a bear or something, then take your handgun.
There is more to be said on the subject but all in all, we do not believe in a gun ban, but we do believe that there are some serious changes to existing gun laws that can be made. Assault weapons are not necessary, and we would not lose any sleep if they were banned. Plus we would have a lot more respect for people who own them if they did not try to justify it with “practical uses” and just say “Hey, it’s fun gun to shoot and this is gosh-danged freakin’ ‘Murica.”