The recent shooting death of 12 people at a Washington, D.C., naval yard and President Obama's subsequent response have once again reignited the debate over gun control in this country. As with every event like this, it was a tragedy that might have been avoided under different circumstances – and one that has become all too commonplace in today's headlines.
In light of these occurrences, the conversation about gun control is both necessary and pertinent, even to the point of urgency.
There are two essential questions that demand examination when considering the issue of gun control: should the government have the authority to regulate things like firearms – possession of which is guaranteed (at least to an extent) by the U.S. Constitution? Secondly, would increased regulation of firearms reduce the number of mass shootings and murders in the U.S. noticeably? The answers to these questions may serve to inform more effectively the gun debate in this country.
Like it or not, the federal government is one big regulatory agency. The amount of money you pay in taxes, the places you can and cannot go and, yes, the things you can and cannot own are all in part determined by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government. The issue here in question is not whether the government ought to regulate the lives of its citizens, but the extent to which this should occur.
Let us consider the example of an armored tank. Ownership of a military-style tank is legal; however, it is illegal for the tank to be weaponized – its guns must not be functional. I see little reason to oppose this type of regulation.
If most people would agree with me, as I believe they would, then it is true that the government ought to be able to decide what may and may not be owned when taking into account issues of public safety. This is similarly true of controlled substances like cocaine or MDMA – they are illegal because of health and safety concerns.
Therefore, due to the threat they pose to public safety, guns should be (and are) regulated in this country. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee the right to bear any and all arms – hence why fully-operational tanks are off limits and fully-automatic weapons are highly regulated.
A second question to consider is whether or not increased regulation translates directly to decreased instances of shooting deaths. Generally, the answer seems to be that fewer guns do in fact mean fewer deaths According to a study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, this seems to be the case. More work could certainly be done on this topic, but it makes sense intuitively at the very least.
Furthermore, simple steps may be taken which do not significantly infringe the American people's Second Amendment rights while risking solvency of the problem of mass shootings.
They are the same talking points most Democrats have been pushing recently: improved background checks and limits on clip capacity.
No one is going to go door-to-door to collect every hunter's rifle or gun-enthusiast's historical collection.
The myth of a national gun registry has been repudiated constantly by Obama, and I do think that a ban based on a gun's aesthetics is nonsensical.
However, legislation that reduces the capability of people to kill a lot of people very quickly ought to be a priority for everyone in Congress.
True, a lot of work must be done to address the problem of mental illness in this country, but in the meantime, the path is clear to address the problem of mass shootings in this country.
Suppliers ought to know exactly to whom they are selling a gun, and no one realistically needs more than 10 bullets in a magazine. When such laws could be very easily implemented with little to no inconvenience to the casual consumer, the biggest losers are always the victims of the next mass murder. Whoever said guns don't kill people was at least half right: people do kill people – but they use guns to do it.
William Hupp is a College junior from Little Rock, Ark.
Read More
Trending
