The gun control debate must be re-framed as a pro-security issue
Last summer, 125 Chicago families lost loved ones in combat. But unlike the coffins draped in American flags returning home from Iraq, these contained victims of local gun violence. The city of Chicago had suffered nearly twice as many fatalities as all American soldiers in Iraq over the same period. Their battlefields were the streets of Chicago — the very streets now courting the 2016 Olympics.
In all of 2008, the city tallied over 500 homicides, 80 percent of which were caused by gunshot wounds. In total, the social costs of gun violence in Chicago are estimated at $2.5 billion. Despite the devastating impact on local communities, federal gun control has essentially been taken off the table as a valid issue due to concerns of its unpopularity in elections. To reinstate such an important and consequential dialogue, Democrats must re-frame gun control as a pro-security measure. The debate over violence and gun control may be complicated and national in its scope, but it has local implications.
Social Security has long been referred to as the “third rail of politics,” but perhaps it shares some voltage with gun control. Since President Obama’s election, gun sales have surged and some gun owners are reportedly hoarding ammo in fear of future restrictions on guns. Two weeks ago, Jimmy Carter questioned what had happened to the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons. The ban, which was signed into law in 1994, defined certain semiautomatic weapons as prohibited “assault weapons.” The law presumes that such weapons, which sometimes include high-capacity ammo magazines, are not used in hunting and have no essential legal purpose. The general issue of gun control is so touchy that when Attorney General Eric Holder floated the idea of reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban, the Administration was forced to back off his comments. The ban, which was once almost universally supported, now is only backed by a mere 53 percent, according to a recent study.
The topic of gun control is a nuanced argument with different levels. The decline of support may be due in part to the effective framing of the issue. The issue of gun control has effectively been framed as an infringement of civil liberties. Many, including Bill Clinton, blame the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 for the Democrats loss of control of Congress in the same year. Some think that Al Gore’s embarrassing loss in his home state of Tennessee in 2000 was due to his vocal stance on gun control. The combination of the notorious power of the National Rifle Association and moderate Congressmen resistant to hot button issues has eliminated any constructive conversations on gun control in recent years. The bill to extend the Ban on Assault Weapons was rejected 90 to 8 by the Senate a mere ten years after it passed, despite public support for the law. Although the law was imperfect, Democrats have made little effort to repair its flaws.
The umbrella issue of gun control encompasses other measures, such as registration requirements, mandatory waiting periods and local ordinances on handguns. The latter restriction on handguns was recently dealt a blow by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled Washington, D.C.’s ”complete prohibition” of handgun possession in the home to be invalid. Although this decision has not been incorporated into the states, many local governments, including that of Evanston, have repealed their ordinances out of fear of being sued by the NRA. With this measure effectively taken off the table for many communities, the best strategy for gun control may be extending moderate waiting periods and background checks when registering for a firearm.
On the issue of gun control, Democrats have simply been outplayed. Republicans have framed themselves as the party of security and stoked fears of the government kicking in doors to pry guns out of Americans’ hands. Allowing the Republican Party to present itself as such is politically suicidal for Democrats. The New York Times reports that the GOP, having recently suffered many political setbacks, is falling back on its classic argument of national security. This is especially disastrous considering safety is the quintessential nonpartisan issue. With a nation fighting two wars in the Middle East and still mindful of September 11, Democrats cannot afford to concede such an important point.
All progressive acts, then, should be framed in their impact on our nation’s security. Issues that may be controversial should be subject to the litmus test of safety before being introduced into the public forum. And with the United States reeling from some of the highest rates of gun violence in the industrialized world, the reckless use of guns certainly constitute a safety, if not public health, concern.
Democrats must be careful to clearly identify their goals in relation to gun control. They will be unsuccessful in trying to separate guns from their legitimate owners. Instead, they should focus on the black market sale of guns and their impact on inner-cities. Similarly, mandatory waiting periods and strict registration laws will ensure that firearms are only sold to those that are responsible. The NRA will have a much tougher job if it is forced to defend criminals and others using firearms illicitly. It seems that the era of gun control, in which legal firearm ownership was drastically reduced, has died due to political fears. In order to appeal to the political center, Democrats must march out their own proud gun owners, like Jimmy Carter and Virginia Senator Jim Webb, to speak on the dignity of legal and responsible gun ownership. Democrats must avoid the anti-gun label. Instead, they must effectively frame the issue as anti-crime and pro-security.
If President Obama has ruled out a revival of the Assault Weapons Ban, he should at least use his political capital to redefine the issue of gun control. As a Chicago resident, he must be acutely aware of the toll of reckless gun use. As a party leader, Obama may be keen to renew an old party tenet through an electorally important lens. Perhaps even the term, “gun control,” should be overhauled. Democracies and, ultimately, the people, thrive on adversarial conversations on public policy. Despite disagreements on the efficacy or constitutionality of such restrictions, the nation is being done a disservice if at least one party doesn’t question the role of non-sporting guns in our society and their limited state of regulation. At the very least, the families of the thousands of dead due to gun violence deserve an honest debate.
| Print
A little less politics, a little more ballpark franks Or you can return home.
President Obama only “ruled out the revival of the Assault Weapons Ban” to put to rest the fears of millions of Americans who are buying ever gun and box of ammunition that they can find or afford.
The President has been labeled “Gun Salesman of the Year” by many publications. His own campaign promises have caused this state of panic in our country. The appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General did not help ease gun control paranoia.
The President sought to put the issue of gun control out of the sight and minds of Americans by stating he would not seek to reinstate the ‘94 Ban. In doing this he snuck around to the back door and attempted to quietly have ratified a long forgotten Treaty to help curb the flow of guns to Mexico.
CIFTA (Spanish acronym), if ratified by the Senate, would essentially strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights. The president is supporting the removal of US sovereignty and our legislative process in favor of an International convention.
The President swore an oath to defend The Constitution. This President is attempting to circumvent our legislative process and override parts of The Constitution. The founders of our country would call this act TREASON….I would hope most freedom loving Americans would as well.
Please don’t think the issue of gun control is dead just because the Assault Weapons Ban won’t be revived. All Americans should read and understand this Treaty and urge their Senators NOT to ratify CIFTA. There are First Amendment rights at risk here as well.
Michael M.
May 12, 2009 at 8:36 pm
“At the very least, the families of the thousands of dead due to gun violence deserve an honest debate.”
Yes, and the MILLIONS who successfully defended themselves or other innocent lives each year using firearms deserve an honest debate as well.
Mr. Levine can start the debate by answering Just One Question (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx), “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
If he cannot then the debate is over right there, right now.
Yes, it is a security issue. And all the available data indicates that all gun control FAILS to make the average person safer. And in the unlikely and rare case of a tyrannical government gun control enables slavery and genocide.
Joe Huffman
May 12, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Until you realize that it’s about factors other than gun control that contribute to crime and lawlessness, you will be completely lost on this subject.
And on the topic of freedoms… there really is no other way to put this argument. Its about our freedoms. Period.
Just as I am typing this I realize something: You claim that one side is wrongfully scaring people against the anti gun crowd, but then want to scare people away from guns in the name of safety? Hypocrite.
Finally, you even use the Chicago gun control debacle as something to promote gun control?! Talk about a great example of failed gun control legislation.
Wild Bill
May 12, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Sweet writing.
Lars
May 12, 2009 at 11:19 pm
You state: “At the very least, the families of the thousands of dead due to gun violence deserve an honest debate.”
The problem is that liberal democrats who are pro gun control have no interest in “honest debate.” You, Alex Levine, admit yourself in this article that you wish to change the terms in order to disguise the political attempt at totally destroying the right found in the 2nd amendment. You don’t want honest debate. You want gun control. If the countries listed in your link demonstrating how the U.S. is “reeling” from guns is any indication, you’d like to see a total ban on guns. Many of those countries have laws that most definitely would not stand the test of the 2nd amendment.
You use terms like “notorious” to describe the NRA and “constructive conversation” for instituting laws to add further “controls” on guns. These are more efforts to change the language to make it appear as if the 2nd amendment was not really being contravened. You state that there was “public support” for reinstating the assault weapons ban and that it was “universally supported.” The first is overstating your case and the second is an outright lie. Is this what you call “honest debate?”
We value our freedom and our rights in this country. If it means more deaths by firearms, then we must accept that it be dealt with my means other than regulations. The NRA has made a significant effort to educate people on safe gun use. Yes, gang fighting will still be a problem. As long as there are parents who don’t raise their kids, there will be homicides. That is another place where private organizations can make an effort to educate and help. Gun control is not the answer in the U.S. If you think I’m wrong, then you should seek to have the second amendment overturned through the ratification process. Anything else is NOT “honest debate.” So stop trying to make gun control palatable. Think in terms of principles and not gimmicks. There is a reason the 2nd amendment is there. It is not for “sporting” purposes. It is not for target shooting. If you want to be anti-crime and pro-security, you should encourage gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Of course, law abiding citizens are rather limited in Chicago, aren’t they? So, who has all the guns? No wonder criminals feel so free to kill in Chicago.
Jeff
May 12, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Joe, I can give you just over 30,000 examples of when readily available guns most certainly made somebody less safe (see: Dead) in the past year.
As of right now, the United states has the most gun related deaths (per 100,000 people) in the world at 14.24. Just over Brazil in second place at 12.95.
Also, to answer your question as to when in the entire course of human history restricting access to a gun has made somebody safer is RIGHT NOW IN JAPAN. Japanese gun restrictions prevent anybody from even holding a gun (and the only guns permitted are shotguns used for hunting and for skeet) without a lengthy licensing procedure. The result? A mere 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 people.
On a similar token, England, with its stricter gun control policies also has a per capita gun related death rate of 0.41.
And as far as your assertion that gun control could enable genocide and slavery? That is possibly the most utterly absurd statement I have heard in a long time. I find it unfair that you can demand proof for a completely reasonable argument and then follow it up with a completely preposterous one.
Saul
May 13, 2009 at 12:49 am
Let’s get a couple things straight.
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution states: “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.” The right to keep and bear arms clearly comes from the necessity of having a well regulated militia, not just so everyone can have guns for recreational use. Taken as written, the Amendment only guarantees guns for citizens who are part of the well regulated militia. Keep in mind that a militia is a force of citizens that defends the country from threats, so unless you’re gun is directly helping protect America from international threats, rebellion other government-threatening scenarios, you have no Constitutional right to a gun.
Second of all, Joe Huffman made the outrageous statement “And in the unlikely and rare case of a tyrannical government gun control enables slavery and genocide.” You cannot claim to have honest debate when you make claims without support or even any regard to propriety. I could just as easily say that not having gun control enables a national uprising of angry people with unlimited access to guns, which could just as easily result in widespread bloodshed and suppression. But such “unlikely and rare” cases aren’t grounds for reasonable argument. Of equal importance, specifically what “millions” of people are you referring to that successfully defended themselves with guns? A claim that strong requires evidence, as do other claims such as “all the available data indicates that all gun control FAILS to make the average person safer.” Show me this evidence and I might believe you.
Gabe
May 13, 2009 at 1:09 am
Saul, you completely miss or misrepresent all the relevant points.
Not all “gun deaths” are illegal. Many are justified homicides. It still may be a tragedy of some sort but it was better than the death or permanent injury of an innocent victim.
Not all “gun deaths” would not have occurred had there not been a gun available. About half of those 30K “gun deaths” in the U.S. are suicides. Another means of accomplishing the same goal will always be available to those truly determined to take their own life.
Just because there are fewer “gun deaths” in some political jurisdiction doesn’t mean people are safer in that jurisdiction. If the murder rate by people using a gun is 1 per 100K in one jurisdiction and 10 per 100K in another a logical person would still prefer to live in the second location if the TOTAL murder rates were 1000 per 100K and 20 per 100K respectively.
England, using your example, has a total violent crime rate higher than the U.S. Again, substitution of one tool for another will enable those determined to commit a violent crime.
As a means of defense for the infirm, the small, and the weak a gun is the only tool that puts them on the nearly equal footing with the largest, most athletic thug.
Do some reading on genocide. There were three necessary components for all genocides in the 20th century. 1) Government; 2) Hatred of a minority; and 3) Gun control. The only thing that can be eliminated, and thereby stop future genocide, is gun control.
Any honest tabulation of numbers must include the number of lives saved by guns in the hands of individuals. Do the research on that then get back to me.
The bottom line is that in the U.S. guns against another human they it is far more frequently a legitimate self-defense situation than a criminal act. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a gun control law that reduced the rate of criminal use of guns faster than it did the rate of legitimate self-defense use. Hence, all gun control laws either do no good at all or decrease safety of the average person. This is completely in line with what the CDC found (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm).
Joe Huffman
May 13, 2009 at 1:26 am
Gabe, Last June the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that individuals have a right to own firearms outside of militia service. The “Individual Right” v. “Collective Right” debate was won by a 7-2 decision in favor of the individual. The “Are the D.C. gun laws reasonable?” question was decided “No” by a 5-4 decision.
As far are evidence for the gun control/genocide read Death By Gun Control (http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=22).
For the millions of defensive uses of guns each year in the U.S. see Gary Kleck’s studies or his book (http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Violence-America-Institutions/dp/0202304191).
Joe Huffman
May 13, 2009 at 1:40 am
In an argument about gun safety it seems a little odd to dismiss evidence directly relating gun control to reduced gun deaths. Surely you can twist any data to fit your agenda, but not without including many other mitigating factors that make your point moot in this debate.
As for genocide, the government and hatred of a minority can be eliminated, and it is absurd for you to hope that stopping gun control will solve such an issue. Gun control has essentially nothing to do with genocide, because genocide is the direct result of a tyrannical government with a powerful army. In this situation, laws we have in a democracy such as gun control are irrelevant considering the dictatorial nature of the government. Your argument has no basis in reality.
And no, I will not do your research and get back to you. If you want to make an argument, you have to find the support for it.
Finally, the study you linked to says that it found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness” of gun laws, which does not mean that gun laws are necessarily ineffective. But regardless, the fact that I could be somewhere in the US and the person walking by me is allowed to carry a gun on them makes me uneasy. How often do you make a rash, impulsive decision? Such decisions don’t just spring up out of the ground, they are the result of temptation, and that’s one temptation I’d rather not have to worry about.
Gabe
May 13, 2009 at 2:05 am
Alex said: “Democrats must re-frame gun control as a pro-security measure.”
Democrats? Why do you see Democrats as the gun-control party? One-half of Democrat senators just voted to repeal the ban on protective carry in National Parks!
Alex, I agree with you in part, but regarding your suggestions regarding context and framing, gun rights people have already successfully framed second amendment freedoms as a pro-security measure. In fact, the Supreme Court argued that defense of self, family, and others (security) is the core purpose of the right to carry protective arms.
Gun control is simply not about crime control, or about security. On the other hand, gun rights are precisely about security.
Carl in Chicago
May 13, 2009 at 6:50 am
Gabe said:
“Gun control has essentially nothing to do with genocide, because genocide is the direct result of a tyrannical government with a powerful army.”
Gabe … please. That’s roundly laughable. Gun control enables genocide precisely because it is the result of tyrannical government. Gun control precludes the people from defending themselves against a genocidal government with a powerful army.
Study history much?
Carl in Chicago
May 13, 2009 at 6:56 am
Many in this country say we need “reasonable gun control laws”. Some say we have no effective gun control in place. Yet there are some 20,000 federal, state, and local gun control laws already in place. The proponents of additional gun control who imply that the existing laws are not effective should be asked which ones they would be willing to give up and lets get them repealed. After all, studies done by the Federal government under the Clinton Administration, including one done on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban found no evidence that any gun control law has had any measurable effect on reducing gun violence. Those who compare criminal misuse of firearms in the United States and other countries are comparing apples to oranges. It’s true that Japan has a much lower rate of firearms violence than we do, but Japanese Americans have a lower rate than the Japanese living in Japan. Obviously there is something cultural at work that is unrelated to firearms access. Firearms violence in Australia and Great Britain has exploded since their almost total bans on lawful firearms ownership were passed. Switzerland has one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world with almost all households required to posess at least on true (fully-automatic) assault weapon. Something other than access to firearms is at work. We need to be asking ourselves what that something is.
Our problem is not a lack of control of firearms, it is a lack of control of those who use firearms to commit crimes. The shooters in Chicago are not Boy Scouts, nor are they members of The Sisters of Mercy. They are career criminals. Studies have repeatedly shown that the overwhelming majority of those who commit homicide have lengthy criminal records, and often commit murder while being on probation or parole or awaiting trial for a previous offence.
We need to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for criminals in posession of firearms. All too often we see felon-in-posession cases (5 year no probation, no parole violation of the federal 1968 Gun Contol Act) plea bargained away and/or never referred to the federal prosecutor. Parole officers and Parole boards need to be held accountable for the violent acts commited by the released felons they are supposed to be supervising. Imagine if one public policy change could reduce our firearms crime rate by 90%. Who would not be in favor of something like that? Yet Richmond, Virginia achieved it by their implementation of Project Exile which referred all felon-in-posession cases to the federal prosecutor. Within months the word on the street was that you could no longer commit a crime while in posession without doing 5 years minimum in Federal custody. Why can’t we implement Progect Exile nationwide?
DDS -- NRA Life Member
May 13, 2009 at 8:47 am
Much of what Alex has suggested has already been tried. The gun-control lobby has tried to rebrand gun control as “gun safety” and even as “gun violence prevention,” only to see support for more restrictive gun laws continue to wane in recent years. Even the notion of rebranding gun control as a pro-security framework has eroded in large part due to fallout from the Bush administration. For the past eight years, George W. Bush lectured Americans on the importance of security. As a result, our libraries, phone calls, and e-mails were monitored without warrant; airline passengers were routinely harassed and humiliated by overzealous security agents; surveillance cameras popped up in an increasing number of public venues; and our overall sense of personal freedom has been gradually diminished. It will take some time to demolish this culture of surveillance and restore our national sense of well-being again.
Daniel
May 13, 2009 at 8:51 am
Gun control is a sop for politicians that have neither will or the ability to correct the socio-economic causes of crime. More of a failed program, in this instance an ‘Assault Weapons Ban’, is no solution. Excuses for its failure don’t change the reality that this ban was just another ‘feel good’ action by politicians. The ban had no real effect. It is time to move on. The laws are there. It is the will that is lacking.
Ron
May 13, 2009 at 8:57 am
You use Chicago as an example but leave out that almost all guns are banned in the city limits of Chicago. Using your logic, if all guns are banned in any given jurisdiction shouldn’t there be no gun violence?
John Henry
May 13, 2009 at 9:24 am
According to the Chicago Police Department:
87% of murderers have previous criminal records
76% of murder victims have previous criminal records
80% of that 87% of murderers have more than 5 previous convictions.
So, assuming the Chicago Police are correct, why are the gun controllers focusing their efforts on law-abiding gun owners?
The answer is simple, gun owners represent a reliable block of socially conservative voters. Eliminate guns and you eliminate the constituency.
Gun control isn’t about guns.
Pete
May 13, 2009 at 10:35 am
I hate it when non-students post on these boards. Don’t they realize it’s really creepy. Get a life and get back to your jobs.
Ugh
May 13, 2009 at 11:48 am
Gun Control by any other name is still gun control and it still about control and the need for elitist politicians safe in their castles to further erode the Constitution and subjugate the populace. All the proposals mentioned here, from renewing the AWB to waiting periods and registration have all been debated ad nauseum. If you want to keep dangerous people off the street, then stop letting them out early and stop filling the jails and prisons up with people caught with a little weed!
Ben Miner
May 13, 2009 at 11:50 am
“I hate it when non-students post on these boards. Don’t they realize it’s really creepy. Get a life and get back to your jobs.”
Welcome to the Internet, buddy.
Terrfeo
May 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Oh, great, so the anti-gun crowd would become the pro-security crowd…which leaves the pro-gun folks holding the anti-security flag. People who don’t understand liberty have been trying to twist words and definitions for decades–”Guns are for the National Guard”; “Guns need to be well regulated”; etc.
For any who understand that the opening phrase of the Second Amendment is referring to the responsibility that goes with the right to keep and bear arms, I invite you to check out today’s militia. It’s a far cry from what the SPLC and the mainstream media make us out to be. You can click on my name or go to http://www.awrm.org.
Peace,
Flick
Flick
May 13, 2009 at 12:39 pm
The debate is over. Guncontrol kills and has failed.
Guncontrol causes these shootings by disarming people.
tm
May 13, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Gabe says: “In an argument about gun safety it seems a little odd to dismiss evidence directly relating gun control to reduced gun deaths.”
In an argument regarding legislation infringing on the citizen’s right to bear arms, it seems a little odd to dismiss the U.S. Constitution. There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. People can show whatever statistics they want in an effort to support their “pragmatic” solution. In the end, there is still that 2nd amendment to contend with not to mention the principles and rights that stand behind the reasons for the amendment. The founders were nothing if not pragmatic in their approach to government. The fact that people like Gabe refuse to see it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Jeff
May 13, 2009 at 1:48 pm
tl;dr
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. If you ever try to take my gun, you are unquestionably my enemy.
Patriot
May 13, 2009 at 3:29 pm
If a total ban on gun ownership makes people safer:
Then America’s prisons and jails ought to be the safest places
in the country, right? (Not just guns, but ALL weapons
are illegal there – even for the guards in some cases!)
Also, anti-gunners are all about SAVING LIVES, and not
power – right? So why don’t all the anti-gunners reading
this do ONE thing right now… DROP gun control as an
issue, and lobby Congress to initiate a no-holds-barred,
balls-to-the-wall, multibillion dollar Manhattan Project
to cure cancer. (Why, that IS a good idea. So much so, I will never take an anti-gunner seriously – except as an enemy of my
liberty, of course – until they take this simple step.)
Brendan
May 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm
As you well say, Chicago, with its strict gun control regulations, has a serious gun crime issue. The same happens in other cities which regulate guns, such as San Francisco, Washington DC, and New York.
Idaho, where I moved a few years ago from Europe, feels much safer, even if guns are little regulated and gun ownership is common.
Just an example that shows regulating guns is not the solution to reducing crime. Anybody thinking with their head -not their guts- will understand that.
The reason that gun control is not going ahead is not lack of political interest, or the NRA, but the fact that many americans want to own guns -period. If the government wants to stop gun ownership, there should be a legitimate benefit. The reasons argued by the gun control crowd more often than now are based on misguided logic and misinterpreted statistics.
fidaho
May 13, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“The law presumes that such weapons, which sometimes include high-capacity ammo magazines, are not used in hunting and have no essential legal purpose.”
___________________________
Any law or person who believes the above assumption is either lying or too prejudiced to research the facts.
bandofotters
May 14, 2009 at 7:59 am
Gabe, Japan has never had have widespread hand held weapon ownership, now or at any time in it’s past. Therefore Japan the proverbial apple to the U.S. Orange.
Gun control as a method of crime control has failed every time it is tried. However, like all leftist policies, the blame is not placed on the policy itself, but is instead laid at the feet of it’s implementation. The True Believers™ cry, “Do it harder, then it will work!”, and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge empirical data right in front of them that demonstrates that failure.
Britain does indeed have a lower murder rate than America, but look deeper than that. Their rate as expressed in x per 100k population has gone up inexorably since they started their travels down the path to total prohibition, and will be par with that of America in the near future.
Mark
May 16, 2009 at 6:17 am
As to Gabe’s assertion that someone must be part of a “militia”, by his reading of the 2nd Amendment, to own a firearm. Ha. Ha ha ha. You’re funny. I mean like stupid, but in a funny way.
If you would bother to take off your commie goggles you would notice that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. And to ‘get a few things straight’ all of the other entries in that tired old document relate to giving rights to “the people” and keeping the government (especially the Federal government) in check. But you have come to the conclusion that for just this one amendment the guys who wrote that document were interested in granting rights to……. the military? the government? You’re saying that the authors of the Bill of Rights took the opportunity in the 2nd Amendment to make sure the government knew that it’s army had the right to bear arms? That’s an interesting take you have, and other than the Federalist Papers and other writings by the guys who actually WROTE the Bill of Rights and now a Supreme Court decision you would be totally spot on. However, taken in context, you are, instead, looking somewhat whacked. And by the way, the right to gun ownership we are granted doesn’t have anything to do with “recreational uses”, you can read that whole Constitution thing and those words aren’t in there anywhere.
As to Japan’s lack of gun violence, who cares? If you want to live like the Japanese go live in Japan, except they wouldn’t let you. The Japanese have one of the most xenophobic societies on the planet, maybe we should encourage xenophobia, too? Switzerland also has a very low rate of gun violence and a requirement that everyone must go through compulsory military service and then keep their military weapon with them in their home. The weird thing is they still have more people murdered by bladed weapons than firearms. What the hell is up with that? Another interesting and useless figure is that Columbia has a very low gun ownership rate, and we know they don’t have any gun violence there, right? You can also put Nigeria on your list of countries with very low gun ownership rates, that’s a country I’m sure you will also want to emulate.
We can go back and forth with arguments and counter arguments regarding whether or not you want to live in a country that trusts you to own guns. I would prefer to have that option, if I don’t bother you then why do you care? I also prefer to be able to protect myself instead of having to wait for a cop to come take a report about what happened to me. As most cops will tell you, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. That doesn’t work for me. If you are so in love with the notion of giving up your freedoms in exchange for what you perceive will bring you some marginal increase in ’safety’ wouldn’t it be easier if you just went to try living in one of the countries that has already taken away it’s citizens rights? Go for it. Good luck. Don’t forget to write. We’ll leave the light on for you.
Old Dude
May 16, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I agree that the language of the discussion needs to be modified if we are going to make any real progress, but I don’t agree that it’s just a question of changing the discussion around “gun control”. Instead, I believe if we focus on the universal concern over violence, of which gun violence is a particular type, then we may be able to get everyone pulling on the same end of the rope.
President Obama has already done something similar with the issue of abortion control vs. rights. If we focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies, we may actually improve people’s lives.
Violence B. Gawn
May 16, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Joe Huffman -
One of the caveats in the CDC study you referenced (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) states, “Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.” Thus, you cannot legitimately use this study to claim ineffectiveness of gun control laws in reducing gun violence.
Violence B. Gawn
May 16, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Yes, I’m aware of that. But my claim still stands. Despite decades of experiments with gun control and associated research there is no evidence that gun control makes people safer. Hence, if there are some benefits they must be very subtle.
Joe Huffman
May 16, 2009 at 10:57 pm
IT has long appeared to me that there are two solutions to the issue of gun crimes: 1) overturn the second amendment and ban guns wholesale (or heavily control them) nationwide a la Australia, or 2) liberalize gun availability to law abiding citizens as the constitution seems to proclaim.
It is all or nothing.
If guns are unrestricted to law abiding citizens, then it greatly disadvantages the criminal. He is liable to be shot commiting his crimes. IF guns are outlawed wholesale, the gun supply vanishes, and no one will get guns, not even criminals. In either case gun crimes should drop.
As it stands, we are in the middle. In some areas it difficult for law abiding citizens to carry weapons, yet the supply of guns is plentiful and easily available to criminals (often in neighboring states or through the black market). Thus criminals have guns, and many law abiding citizens can not. The advantage of course goes to the criminal.
In all truth though, I am ambivalent as to the course that I would prefer. I do not (ever) forsee that we will overturn the second amendment, so perhaps our only better option is liberalizing legal gun ownership, but I won’t hold my breath for that to happen either.
Perhaps the congressional pendulum has swung a bit more in the direction of the constitution, but we are still in the middle, and
I don’t forsee this issue changing greatly in my lifetime, nor in lifetimes of my young sons.
Kirk G.
May 20, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I want to pick at this bit: “. . .mandatory waiting periods and strict registration laws will ensure that firearms are only sold to those that are responsible.”
Gun registration is not acceptable. I’m certainly not going to register my guns. The only thing that registration schemes accomplish is paving the way for confiscation. And before anyone starts crying “paranoid!”, just consider England or Australia. It’s hardly paranoid to think the anti-gun faction might want to do in the USA exactly what they’ve already done in other countries.
From the article: “Democrats must avoid the anti-gun label.”
Why not simply drop the anti-gun position? Wouldn’t that be easier? If the Democratic Party has found itself on the wrong side of this issue, the logical next step would be to move onto the right side of it: the pro-gun side. They’ll have more success by responding to the wishes of the people, rather than trying to con us.
Zobeid Zuma
May 24, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Will they accept broadening concealed carry permits to “shall issue” and meeting other states reciprocity of such permits?
If they stick tightly to waiting periods, will they allow guns of the owners have met training in tactical and legal situations?
Given tthe unpopularity of registration, they should accept the findings from decades of experience that law-abiding gun owners are responsible for a vanishingly small fraction of all wrongful uses of guns, while by far most wrongful uses are by a tiny fraction of hardened career criminals who won’t be affected.
Drop the fear-driven registration requirements.
Do they simply fear honest citizens who want one in their home, or pass the requirements for carry, and met some training? Will they allow that some people who live in such cities and want a gun are trustworthy?
Or none at all, and they fear & mistrust all who might want a gun?
The article bemoans the passing of the AWB, but can they point to any real benefits from it? Such things have no legal use, but they cannot prove that anyone who wants one might be contemplating illegal uses -they asume so, thereby branding anyone who hasn’t done anything wrong as untrustworthy.
Can they point to any solid benefit from the AWB? It never helped gain any convictions and hardly was used to investigate or prosecute anything, so what’s the point other than to categorize a class of “scary things”?
Some will try to apply some local reductions in crime to the AWB, but they perhaps hypocritically won’t allow that broadening of concealed carry permits in many locales has also coincided with strong reductions in crime (and the facts that the permit holders are not at all a problem).
Their single-minded fixation on removing guns from the law-abiding regardless of training or requirements met by definitely law-abiding people speaks of an irrational intolerance of a class of inanimate objects.
John Frazer
Boulder, Co.
johnf4303(at)hotmail.com
John Frazer
June 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I think it is funny how you use Chicago as evidence we need more gun control laws. Chicago and DC have the most restrictive gun control laws in the county including a total handgun ban, yet usually have the highest murder rates. How is this possible you ask? Simple, criminals don’t obey laws. You only regulate law abiding citizens who don’t commit violent crime anyway.
Joe Young
September 29, 2009 at 10:40 pm