GUNS
May 24th, 2007I believe that people have a fundamental right to bear arms. It’s a dangerous world and the last line of defense against mayhem or murder is oneself. You can’t always rely to e there to protect you when a threatening situation erupts. Day-to-day statistics are replete with incidents of ordinary folks successfully using their guns to intervene in or deter violent attacks. Lately, increasing numbers of states have adopted “shall issue” policies on concealed weapons permits to ordinary citizens. Not only have there been almost no incidents of permit holders using their guns illegally, but studies have shown that such states can show a reduction in the overall rate of violent crime.
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads: “A well regulated militia being the foundation of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The meaning of this brief sentence is often hotly debated. Some have argued that it refers to a collective right rather than an individual right, and that the “well regulated militia” intent is fulfilled by each state’s National Guard. But the broad popular interpretation has long since held that the Amendment does indeed guarantee an individual’s right to possess firearms.
But what “arms” amounted to in the 1780’s and what they amount to today are very different—you got your machine guns, artillery, guided missiles, land mines—people sometimes ask, “does the 2nd Amendment give you the right to have a nuclear bomb?” This is redcuto ad absudum, but clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere.—what with pistols, shotguns and rifles on one side and WMDs on the other. One recent attempt to draw a line was the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The idea was that these “military-style” semi-automatic rifles were so dangerous that a federal ban on them was justified. But since it was deemed unreasonable to confiscate such articles from private individuals, or for that matter from gun dealers and manufacturers, the ban only covered newly made of imported weapons. But the very definition of “military-style assault rifle” was a major part of the debate over the language of the legislation. There have been semi-automatic .30 caliber hunting rifles in circulation since the early 1900’s, and the ban was definitely not intended to cover this category. Apparently, to qualify and as an assault weapon, a rifle had to include a sufficient number of certain features such as a, folding stock, short barrel, pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc. Only 2-3% of gun crimes were committed using such guns (although to be fair, a true measure would be illegal shots fired per weapon owned, while giving the power of rifle-caliber fire its due). Predictably, gunmakers simply produced models that deleted enough of these features to pass muster, and the publicity generated by the legislation spurred the market for these and the existing stocks. In short, the ban was more loophole than fabric and wound up backfiring. Pro- and anti-gun control lobbyists disagree as to whether the ban had any appreciable effect on violent crime, but at any rate, in September 2004 Congress allowed the ban to expire.
But “gun control” remains a very volatile issue, so volatile that people can’t even chill out on what “gun control” even means. There are many different areas whereby regulation might reduce the number of tragic shootings—or not.
• Certain individuals can be restricted from owning guns.
Longstanding state and federal laws have prohibited convicted felons and crazy people* from owning a gun. The 1994 Brady Act requires a government background check be performed before gun dealers can sell someone a gun. It may be kind of a bummer to have to give up your right to self-defense just because you’re an ex-con, but these checks have prevented hundreds of thousands of illegal gun purchases, and even a small percentage amounts to thousands of lives saved.
• Waiting periods can be imposed.
A 5-day waiting period was part of the original Brady Act but that expired in 1998 once instant background checks can online. Part of the idea was that this would impose a “cooling off” period in case the gun buyer was in a murderous or suicidal mood. It was inevitable that there would be one or two instances where someone would be shot while waiting for the gun they otherwise would have defended themselves with, and doubly so that the gun lobby would tout these in criticizing the waiting period. But there can be no doubt that many times more shootings were prevented, even if there was no way of counting these.
• Guns in the home can be required to be kept locked.
This could be trigger locks or a cabinet or nightstand drawer; requirements that ammo be kept separately might also be imposed. But while this might prevent a lot of accidental shootings by kids, the need to fiddle with keys, etc. would defeat the purpose of keeping a gun in the home for defense against intruders. Besides, a law that intrudes into your bedroom like that would be totally unenforceable. However, a requirement that trigger locks be included with all purchases would save some lives incidentally, while not troubling those who choose not to use them.
