Gun Control

A woman scrambles for her phone. Her heart thrums in her chest, a rapid-fire rhythm she thought she’d only ever hear once in her life. Around her, people are screaming, running, ducking for cover. She sends an ominous text message, the same exact one she sent two years ago: “Active shooter.”


What are the odds of being at the San Bernardino shooting in 2015, and then at the Las Vegas massacre? Evidently, large enough [1].

Columbine. Sandy Hook Elementary. Newton, Connecticut. Charleston. Orlando nightclub. Boston Marathon. San Bernardino. Las Vegas. It seems as though the latest shootings are the deadliest; based on this data, the next mass attack will only be worse [2].

Though the discussion of gun-ownership and gun rights is highly debated and controversial in the United States, legislation is complicated: federal law has certain restrictions on persons who can transport and possess guns, but other caveats and nuances are found in individual states.

Federal law dictates the following: fugitives, illegal aliens, some criminals, and the like cannot own or carry guns; certain firearms, such as machineguns or unregistered ones, are illegal to all [3]. But even within federal law, there are many loopholes and vague provisions: small-scale firearms dealers aren’t required to have background checks, and the description of the mentally ill is ambiguous [4].

Across states, there are many variations in background checks required for owning guns and carrying firearms, as well as the locations to which owners may bring their weapons. Even in neighboring states, one state may require permits to purchase all types of firearms -- as seen in California -- while the other requires none -- like in Nevada. Similarly, California requires registration of all firearms while Nevada requires none [5]. The first step in gun-control regulation, though onerous, should be clarifying federal and state law to elucidate meaning and restrictions.

In regards to the right of citizens to bear arms, the debate is slightly more complicated.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [6]. This is the line from the Second Amendment that many advocates for gun-rights quote. Many supporters of stricter gun regulation claim that the quote, referring to a militia, defends the collective rights of self-defense [6]. Both sides are well-backed by diverse sources: from news to books to essays entitled, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” and “A Nation of Cowards.”

There’s a distinct line between safety and liberty; it’s impossible to be completely safe without losing much individual liberty. Traffic laws -- wearing seatbelts, stopping at stop signs -- limit an individual’s right to happiness (for some, this may be driving 95 on the freeway) but they protect most of society. There are violations of these laws, and consequently, accidents and deaths. The price paid for individual liberty is a perpetual risk.

Guns are dangerous: an equalizer, a weapon that can be wielded “effectively by almost anyone… not demanding great skill or strength” [7]. However, the right to guns is delineated in the Constitution, which is the single most important document in this country. Without following the parameters of the Constitution, there would be nothing upon which US laws are based. If citizens are to be restricted from owning or keeping firearms, then there should be a Constitutional Amendment to reflect that change. At the moment, legislation allows citizens to bear arms.

With that being said, legislation can and should regulate firearm possession. In the aftermath of aforementioned mass shootings, the first step should be regulating guns in public areas, prohibiting firearms in facilities where over 200 people may congregate. Of course, this is just an example; these numbers and rules need to be refined. But it’s obvious that guns prove more hazardous in concentrated areas. Especially when many Americans use guns for hunting or target shooting, there’s no need for firearms in public areas [8]. Removing guns from such locations mitigates risk.

Moreover, the banning of automatic guns and machine guns should be readily enforced. Current law leaves loopholes; for example, the Las Vegas shooter made his own semi-automatics [9]. Such methods of creating automatic or semi-automatic guns should be restricted, even if such machineguns are already banned in the US [3].

Citizens have the right to bear arms, but the government has the right to regulate this ownership -- to some extent. Again, having liberty means having risks; laws are in place to mitigate those risks, but only to a certain degree. This means previously mentioned inconsistencies in legislation should be changed to become more uniform: citizens are allowed to own firearms and carry them to approved locations, but all states should regulate the licensing and sale of such firearms, as seen in California.

Both sides of this debate will mostly likely agree that guns give their users power.

In his famous work, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes wrote that people were “naturally wicked” and should “not be trusted to govern” [10]. Accordingly, Hobbes thought that absolute power should fall to a ruler over these people. Opposing this is the belief that people are inherently good and law-abiding. Though it’s abundantly evident that this isn’t always the case, a government should set the latter conditions as standards, punishing those who are not law-abiding, rather than removing rights altogether. Trusting law-abiding citizens gives governments the ability to give people power. Those who abuse this trust will be dealt with accordingly.

As of October 18th, in 2017, there have been 286 incidents of mass shootings and 1,644 incidents of shootings or killings from police [11]. It’s clear that guns and firearms are dangerous. But American legislation prevents government interference between citizens’ liberties and their safety. To best protect the public while maintaining individual rights, the government needs to clarify and enforce legislation on gun-control, ensuring that while citizens are allowed to own firearms barring automatics, state legislation requires registration, licensing and thorough background checks.

Though this may be the best way to compromise between both sides of the discussion, there are many factors and subtleties that must be addressed in this issue. Gun regulation is hotly debated and highly controversial for a reason: this debate has moral, social, and economical repercussions, some of which may not be obvious yet. But this is for certain: the fight for public safety versus the respect of individual rights will continue, and ultimately will involve much of society in the process.

Sources:

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-las-vegas-firefighter-20171005-story.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-two-dead-in-mandalay-bay-casino-shooting-latest-updates

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html

    https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

    http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/04/did-las-vegas-shooter-get-arsenal-guns-easily-legally/

    http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/nature/hobbes-bio.html

    http://www.gunviolencearchive.org