Government, Guns, and Glory

It was Charlie Daniels who famously said "They're trying to take our guns away, and that would be just fine, if you take them away from the criminals first, I'll gladly give you mine." I think, in essence, that sums up exactly how a lot of people feel about the issue. Though gun owners are often portrayed in the media as ignorant rednecks that need their weapons to shoot minorities, the fact of the matter is, most folks simply want to feel protected.

On one hand, there are many ways to protect yourself besides using a firearm. I believe it is a cultural theme which makes Americans feel that they can only protect themselves with a gun of some sort. On the other hand, the government can never completely eradicate the presence of firearms among criminals and black market dealers, so if the bad guy has a gun, then a baseball bat won't serve as adequate protection.

One issue with gun ownership is the politics behind it. People on the left believe that guns - not individuals - kill people and we would be a safer nation if no one legally owned firearms. People on the right believe that more guns in the hands of Americans means more safety and every child should be given an AR-15. While this is a slight exaggeration, it's not too terribly far off. Gun ownership, like every controversial issue in America, has become excessively politicized, making it impossible to negotiate any type of compromise.

As always, before delving into the issue, I'd like to first highlight statistics which support arguments on both sides of the issue:
-In 2008, 16,272 murders were committed; about two-thirds of these were committed with firearms.
-A study conducted in 2000 concluded that, on average, Americans use guns to protect themselves or others from criminals about 1 million times per year.
-A 1982 study found that among male felons in state prisons:
      -34% had been scared off, wounded, or captured by victims with firearms
      -40% decided not to commit a crime because they knew or believed the victim was armed
      -69% knew another criminal who had been scared off, wounded, or captured by an armed victim
-A 10-year study conducted by the Justice Department concluded that 83% of Americans will be the victim of a completed or attempted violent crime in their lifetime.
-For every 12 violent crimes committed, just one person is prosecuted and convicted.
-In 1976, Washington, D.C. banned handgun ownership in the district. In the following 30 years, murder rates in D.C. were, on average, 73% higher, while murder rates throughout the rest of the nation dropped.
-England and Wales - two nations often championed for their low homicide rates and strict gun control - imposed a ban on most firearms in 1968 and an even tighter ban in 1997. Following the 1968 law, homicide rates increased by 52% and rates increased by another 15% following the 1997 law.
-States which have a right-to-carry law (allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons with just a background check and a gun-safety course) have 24% less violent crime, 28% less murders, and 50% less robberies.
-In 2010, 606 unintentional deaths occurred because of firearms.
-States with the highest rates of gun ownership have nine times as many unintentional deaths than states with the lowest rates of gun ownership.
-1.7 million children are living in homes that possess loaded and unlocked firearms.
-Abused women are five times as likely to be killed by their abuser if he owns a firearm.
-Of the 61 mass shootings that have occurred since 1982, 49 of the shooters obtained their guns legally.

I understand that's a lot of statistical information to take in, but I believe it's important. Though there are many other figures which I would like to include, I can only bore my readers but so much. One thing to highlight, though, is that there is a significant difference between correlation and causation. Some studies show that more guns equal more deaths; other studies indicate that more concealed carry permits equal less violent crime. It's worth noting, however, that these variables are not necessarily connected. That is, it could be the case that less violent crimes occur because more people are concealed carrying. It could also be the case that as violent crimes decreased, concealed carry permits coincidentally increased. Therefore, you should never assume that any statistic is definitive proof of any sort of trend.

Practically speaking, however, it's natural to look at those statistics and notice two things: guns seem to be key in self protection and preventing crime, and they also seem to contribute to superfluous deaths. We, of course, want people to be safe and minimize victimization as much as possible, but we also want to make sure that guns don't go into the hands of the wrong individuals and that gun owners are as safe and responsible as possible. This is where the rubber meets the road and where policy needs to reflect the desires of folks on both the left and the right.

First and foremost, the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what (with the exception of a constitutional amendment). The original version of the Second Amendment read as follows: "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." You're probably thinking that that is a weirdly worded sentence that could be interpreted as both a comma splice and an incomplete sentence. To clarify what I believe Jefferson meant, I'd like to turn to newspapers. Often times you'll read a headline such as "Obamacare hurts taxpayers, insurance companies". That comma, of course, is meant to take the place of the word "and". Similarly, Jefferson intended the Second Amendment to be read as "A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state) and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"—thus, eliminating any question as to whether the Second Amendment applies to the people or simply militias. Certainly, there are a great deal of arguments that can be made as to what exactly "arms" are, but that is a debate that can neither be won nor lost.

In terms of establishing policy that allows gun ownership in a safe and responsible manner, there are a myriad of solutions. Though I am clearly in favor of gun ownership, I'm far from an extremist. I believe that guns used for hunting and recreation should be available for adults over the age of 18—and please, do not try to tell me that you're going whitetail hunting with an AK-47. This includes mostly just shotguns and hunting rifles. In terms of purchasing any types of assault rifles, I believe prudential policy would raise the age of purchase to 21, as is the case with handguns. Why? The idea behind handguns not being available to individuals under 21 is the same idea behind the drinking age: the government wants gun owners to be mature and responsible. A 19-year old is not going to carry around an AR-15 for protection the way a 22-year old would carry around a Glock .40. Therefore, the only reason that a sub-21-year old would need an assault rifle would be for either home protection or recreation. Assault rifles, typically, are not used for recreation anymore than handguns are, so if handguns are going to be exclusively for 21-year olds, then assault rifles should be as well. In terms of home protection, a shotgun is as effective - if not more - in providing home protection when compared to an assault rifle. Realistically, if there is a burglar, one shot (from any gun) will be more than enough to encourage them to leave. If, however, your goal is to shoot and kill them (which it shouldn't be), then for close-range firing, a shotgun - which shoots a spray of pellets - will cover a greater deal of surface area, almost guaranteeing a hit if you know what you're doing (which you should, if you own a firearm).

Along with raising the age requirements for assault rifle purchases, I believe that the process for purchasing any type of gun should be tightened. The process right now, though it varies state to state, is often extremely quick. My friend, for instance, purchased a handgun in Virginia about two months ago. He was in and out of the store within two hours, and that included a great deal of shopping around first. While this is convenient for the responsible gun owners, anyone that needs to get a gun within an hour is probably up to something shady. I suggest tightening the background checks, including applicable psychiatric information in the background check information, inclusion of expunged charges, and the inclusion of any federal files on the applicant. Again, I fully believe in allowing folks to purchase and own firearms, but I don't see how you could possibly be too safe about it.

Of course, gun laws should and will be administered on a state level, but I would support a gun safety course for all gun owners. While it's tedious, too many inexperienced individuals can walk right into a gun shop and purchase any type of firearm they please without having any knowledge of or experience with operating the weapon. I would also support mandated renewal of firearm licenses on either a five or ten year basis. It's great to be thorough in checking individuals before the preliminary sale of the weapon, but gun owners are just as capable of becoming mentally unstable or ill after their purchase. If a man buys a gun one day and is perfectly fine but six years later suffers deep depression and schizophrenia, then perhaps he should have his firearm revoked until he can sufficiently prove that he has overcome his illnesses. If we ever want to prevent unnecessary murders and mass shootings, our approach must be proactive rather than retroactive.

In terms of the recent restrictions on magazine capacities, I'm a little torn. On one hand, I see no practical need for a 50-round magazine. On the other hand, the government cannot objectively determine which magazine size is reasonable and which is not, nor can they account for all potential situations. I suppose the best approach is to allow each state to decide what magazine capacity (if any) is the most appropriate and reasonable. Alternatively, research into the average number of bullets required to subdue or deter a criminal in an attack may provide insight as to the most reasonable magazine size. Obviously the only need to regulate magazine size is to hinder the capabilities of a perpetrator in the case of a mass shooting.

The final approach to improving the gun laws of America is to increase the penalties for illegal gun ownership. Legal penalties are already substantial, but the best way to further curb illegal ownership is to increase the penalty. Once again, this is an issue that should be left up to the states to decide, but harsher penalties will likely result in less crime.

Many conservatives, particularly the Tea Partiers, believe that Americans should have the right to carry weapons of any size in order to protect themselves from the forces of tyranny and an oppressive government. I'd like to address this in a twofold manner. Firstly, giving Americans weapons of any size is a terrible, terrible idea. I will not feel any safer in my home if I have an M249 Saw, but I will feel unsafe if my neighbor has one. Secondly, the government is not going to "attack" us. Anyone that believes that that will happen is downright insane. But let's, for a moment, just imagine that it were to happen—one of two things would occur. In the first scenario, the federal government decides that it will begin rounding up Americans and (I don't know?) putting them in camps or something. The military, however, refuses to go along with this plan (because it's absurd and absolutely not okay). Without the military, the government cannot execute on this diabolical plan. What are they going to do, send Harry Reid from house to house with a sawed off shot gun? In the second scenario, the government begins this plan but the military does go along. In this case, we stand no chance. I don't care how many AR-15s or ACRs you have, you cannot and will not take down a platoon of Marines, much less an Abrams Tank. An M1 Abrams Tank, simply, does not lose. So in either of these cases, our attempts (as citizens) to resist the tyranny of the government are futile. 

I think by this point, I have offended both gun toters and gun controllers, but the point is, we have to form a comprehensive and compromised approach if we want to resolve the issue of gun violence in the U.S. This way, the gun toters can keep their guns, and the gun controllers can sleep a little safer at night knowing that less crazies can access firearms.

I'd like to end this article the same way I began: with a quote. I will not cite who this quote was provided by (though you can obviously Google it and find out for yourself) because without knowing who stated it, this quote can be interpreted two ways. It can either mean that banning guns will make us feel safe or that banning guns will make us feel endangered—both of which are accurate in their own ways. Guns, ironically, are a double edged sword that provide both danger and protection. Anything that can simultaneously do that is incredibly hard to control and impossible to effectively legislate.

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." -Anonymous