Gun Control

Many enthusiastic recreational shooters have seen the signs posted at the driveway to the firing range: “Three shots through the same hole at 100 yards, now, THAT’S GUN CONTROL”. Well, yes, fine shooting; a tribute to the individual holding the gun, the quality of the gun, ammunition, and the sighting system. But, the real meaning of “GUN CONTROL” used in newspapers, broadcast media and casual conversation in our society is code for a suite of much longer phrases, mostly questions:

Why does our society have so many shootings?
Who is going to take away our guns?
How can I buy a gun?
Do mentally handicapped persons have a right to own guns?
How old do I have to be to own a gun?
Guns don’t kill people, people do!

Let’s look at these one by one.

As for the first question, “Why does our society have so many shootings?”: There’s no way around it, the amount of gun violence is linked to the relatively free availability of firearms, and especially handguns, in this country. Per the FBI, the United States overall has 2.98 firearms murders per 100,000 persons per year. Meanwhile in the UK, their Home Office Statistical Bulletin, “Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2008/09″, shows that in the British Isles (or at least in England and Wales), shootings accounted for 39 homicides in 2008/09, compared with 53 in 2007/08 (Table 1.03), which was the lowest number recorded since 1989 (38 offenses). Given that the population of England and Wales is approximately 55 million, that makes the number of gun murders per 100,000 people around or less than 0.1.

As for the second (rather loaded, if you’ll excuse the pun) question, “Who is going to take away our guns?”: Nobody, not with the National Rifle Association being so powerful in American politics. The NRA and AARP are the two largest lobbying groups (in membership) in the country. Just look at how effective AARP has been in keeping the cost of health care down! The reality is that we don’t need the NRA to protect our Second Amendment. A collective IQ exceeding 100 prepares one to understand that we won’t repeal #2 any more than we’ll repeal #19 (right to die from alcohol) or #21 (right to ignore people of female gender).

The answer to the third question is easy: Walk into most any gun show, and you can buy a gun, no questions asked. If you don’t mind having a background check run on you to see if anything legally constrains you from owning a gun, you can purchase a firearm at a gun shop, but if you want to avoid this, simply attend a gun show instead.

The answer to the fourth question is dependent on whether mental instability or mental deficiency is the issue. Since 1968, Federal law has made it illegal for mentally ill persons to buy guns; however, as happened in the case of the Tucson shooter, it’s very easy for a mentally ill person to get away with purchasing a gun, as there is at best spotty state compliance with, and records submittal, to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is supposed to allow licensed gun dealers the ability to vet a potential purchaser’s criminal and mental health record. Furthermore, someone looking for a gun could always pick one up at a gun show or even via a classified ad, and avoid background checks entirely. As for mental deficiency or retardation, there are no Federal laws against persons with these conditions using guns, though some states, including Minnesota, have laws prohibiting these people from using firearms.

With regard to the fifth question, that answer differs for the type of gun involved. Federal law prohibits anyone younger than 21 from owning a handgun, but allows the states to set the rules for other types of guns. Generally, most state laws allow minors to use guns only after passing a firearms-safety course, and only in the presence of a responsible adult. However, it is so easy to acquire guns, legally and illegally, that these laws are not much of an obstacle to the determined teenager.

And as for the final statement: Oh, come off it. Guns kill people, and with considerably more efficiency than, say, crossbows, knives, rocks, or partially hydrogenated soybean oil. (The last may eventually kill you, but it’ll take several decades to do it.) If guns didn’t possess the power to allow their users to kill with efficiency — and even to kill large numbers of people despite being wielded by users with minimal experience, as was the case in Tucson last Saturday — they would not be sought after so avidly in this and certain other countries.

So, any reasonable person would have to conclude that responsible gun ownership, for hunting (non-humans) and target shooting, would remain freely accessible to the people even if nation-wide licensing and competency certification were required for the use of such firearms. Just as we agree to regulate automobile drivers through age, eyesight, and competency stipulations, we should impose meaningful training and usage requirements on gun owners, without infringing on their constitutional “right” to own firearms. We allow people to drink themselves into a stupor with whatever frequency they choose, as long as they are old enough to make mature(?) decisions about their own behavior, but we restrict their right to operate a motor vehicle in public places while inebriated. Failings in these laws are legion, of course, with state governors, talk-show hosts, and entertainers regularly testing the boundaries of public tolerance. And, the boundaries are very elastic, often depending on the apparent social, economic, racial or ethnic status of the alleged perpetrator. Sweden has dealt more effectively with drunk driving than we have, oh, yah! And, they didn’t require anything as traumatic as a constitutional amendment.

The Tucson tragedy has re-awakened public consciousness about guns in public places, but we all share the responsibility for turning this awareness into effective public policy. Start by dumping your membership in the NRA which, prejudiced by extreme paranoia over the Second Amendment, has squandered several decades of opportunity to recommend sensible legislation. Find an organization that supports responsible firearms training, and become more active in publicly supporting legitimate firearms use in competitive shooting and hunting. Challenge the fear-mongering that cripples rational thought and action and help your legislators understand that you no longer wish to be threatened by lethal force, explicit or implied, while you traverse public spaces. Ironically, you should take a page from the NRA playbook and use their tactics (have you noticed how all outdoor equipment, from bicycles to toothpase has recently been advertised as “tactical”?) to assure that the next round of legislation makes you safer, not more fearful.

Firearms issues are complex, and we encourage readers go beyond the six questions that introduced this essay and enter into rational discourse that will generate appropriate legislation for owning and using firearms without the threat or implied threat of violence to others.

Thalweg, with help from Phoenix Woman

Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post