Not many issues have garnered so much attention and passion as gun rights, laws, control, etc. Mass shootings and senseless violence thrust this issue onto front pages across the country, and the world wonders why the U.S. has such (relatively) lax gun laws.
I'm not here to "pick a side" on the debate that's heating up. Rather, I'd like to shed some light on some misunderstandings and assumptions. From there maybe facilitated discussion can help this issue progress to a resolution.
First off, the extreme sides of the debate take center stage even though they represent a small percentage of the popluation. On one side is the anti-gun lobby, and the other has pro-gun. Simple dichotomy--but it gets complicated from here on out. While the former group is adamant about eliminating all guns, they understand that this goal is unrealistic. The latter group feels, for the most part, that any gun control measure is akin to all out gun ban. As such they see these proposed measures as against the 2nd Amendment.
Yet it seems the 2nd Amendment isn't well understood. The language used outlines the utility of the 2nd Amendment, and that is of a "well regulated militia", and regulated means "controlled". So the 2nd Amendment asserts the Right of the people to form a controlled militia (controlled by whom? Good question). Therefore, gun control falls into the safe abode of this Amendment. Banning guns certainly does not.
Does this mean the assault rifle ban is unconstitutional? Not necessarily. The 2nd Amendment does not mention guns or rifles, just "Arms". Therefore banning one style of arms (assault rifles) does not ban the category of arms (guns). And this can be seen as a regulation.
I've heard many people state that an armed population keeps a government at bay, and that every unarmed population has been run over by authoritarian leaders. This argument is squashed wholeheartedly by Gandhi and the nonviolent, in fact weaponless, fight for Indian independence (they won). That's the end of that type of argument.
Others say that guns provide protection--that if someone in the Aurora movie theater had a gun, other than the perpetrator, then significantly fewer people would have been killed. This is Hollywood imagination. In a dark, noisy, smoky movies theater picking out a heavily armed target and dropping him, without any collateral damage, is highly improbable. And I would venture a good guess to say that someone in that theater DID have a gun on them, and failed to use it. Many studies/books have been written that state the uneasiness, and unwillingness for a sane person to shoot another, even in combat situations.
Others would say assault weapons are not needed for self defense. Maybe, but that argument is irrelevant. We don't need drive-thru fast food joints...but we have them. Still, I'd put a well trained pistol against a non-trained assault rifle any day.
But banning all guns, or even just assault weapons, misses the point. Guns are going to be found, bought and used. A few bad apples shouldn't dictate how others are treated. A very high majority of legal gun owners use them rightfully and safely. Those who acquire gun illegally should be the focus.
Tragedies go deeper than weapons, though. I submit that much of the focus should be on educating, leading and guiding children and young adults to learn about life, society and happiness. This is certainly not easy. Maybe this is why we focus on guns: it's more tangible to focus on, with simpler, cut-and-dry solutions. Just make a law and everything will be alright.
Comments