In light of the recent shooting in Tucson, how should gun control legislation be handled moving forward?
Ross Marine (conservative): Several months ago, we addressed whether or not Muslims should be allowed to build a mosque near ground zero. All three of us agreed yes for one basic reason: the rights of the majority should not be constricted because of the misdeeds of the minority.
We (for the most part) didn’t lose sight of this ideal after 9/11 and we shouldn’t lose sight of it in the wake of the tragedy in Tucson. The endangered right in question here is not freedom of religion or expression, but the right to bear arms.
The notion of gun control is flawed — over 90 percent of gun crimes are committed with illegally purchased guns; which means, even if gun control laws were tightened, the effect on gun violence would be minimal.
For example, in the late ‘90s, Great Britain banned all handguns above .22 caliber after a school shooting. In the following two years, gun crimes rose 40 percent. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban for some time, before it was struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional, and there was no change in gun violence while the ban was in place.
There is no way to control guns that are purchased on the street or stolen, and unfortunately, those are the weapons used to commit the vast majority of crimes in this country.
The other reason why gun control does not work is because it is poorly implemented. The current gun control laws should have prevented Jared Loughner, the shooter in Arizona, from purchasing a firearm. Loughner had serious mental problems and was a habitual drug user; these facts were brought to light when he was barred from enlisting in the army. Current gun control laws are supposed to prevent people with mental disabilities from obtaining firearms, which is why all purchases of guns are accompanied by background checks. Unfortunately, the background check somehow allowed Loughner to slip through the cracks. Increasing the number of restrictions on gun purchases won’t solve problems with gun violence, but beefing up enforcement might prevent some tragedies from repeating themselves.
Americans should not be scared into supporting legislation that will infringe upon their Second Amendment rights, yet will fail to fix the problems it was designed to address. The notion of tolerance towards extremism and tragedy should not be limited to race and religion, but to all parts of our Constitution if we want to fulfill our roles as productive citizens in a free society.
Pavan Kota (moderate): Weeks after the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, the political community must wonder what movement will be set in place, namely the one concerning gun control. I don’t see why this event wouldn’t cause an increase in gun control legislation. However, apparently Arizona lawmakers are using the recent Tucson shooting as an initiative to increase the opposite: gun availability.
This isn’t a matter of the unfortunate people in that crowd being able to defend themselves with guns, but more a matter of preventing the attacker from having a gun in the first place.
The number of people hurt would have been even more significant if everyone in the area had a gun and tried to protect the people around them. In such chaos, there would be no telling who the “bad guy” was.
Most arguments gun advocates make are centered on the idea of defending one’s home and deterring crime. The way I see it, if criminals and homeowners can’t own guns, the risk of injury plummets. I also don’t understand how owning a gun “deters” criminals from one’s house.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but unless you openly brag about your ownership and post signs in your yard, intruders won’t see that you own a gun and stay away from you.
However, I do understand that a complete ban on firearm ownership wouldn’t be a great idea. Criminals are criminals, and considering that laws haven’t stopped them before, gun laws wouldn’t necessarily stop them either.
Regardless of your stance on gun control, in all honesty, I’m not sure why the Tucson tragedy raised this issue over other, more important ones.
Instead of focusing on gun control, I believe the focus of the tragedy should be on our flawed mental health system and taking note of warning signs in our peers for violent tendencies.
Jared Loughner found himself in trouble with the University of Arizona campus police on multiple occasions, and his friends also saw strange changes in his behavior for a while. Also, Loughner was known to be a fan of government conspiracies, and is suspected to have been involved in an anti-government organization.
Preventative methods against such violence need to be looked into. In this case, guns aren’t the issue, and advocates for gun control shouldn’t pretend they are.
Mackenzie Nelson (liberal): When my father and I crossed the border into Canada a few weeks ago on our way to visit Vancouver, the immigration official asked smugly and almost mockingly, “Do you have any handguns or weapons on you? You know, that is illegal here in Canada.”
The minute the immigration official served me this stinging question on with a side of satire and a pinch of sarcasm, I couldn’t decide if I was offended by her elitism, or ashamed to have my American passport in tote.
I am confident that at least one of the fine gentlemen in the columns above me will slander me as an America-hating-tree-hugging-peace-loving-hippie. But I believe that the recent shooting in Tucson should be a wake-up call for Americans across the nation.
For those of you who might need some brushing up on your U.S. history, the Second Amendment was established at a time when the United States was but an infant nation with no standing army. All men were guaranteed “the right to bear arms,” not as a natural right or liberty, but as means for defending themselves as a sort of makeshift army.
I don’t think any of us need to be reminded that times have changed, and that the days of Constitutional Conventions are over. Not only does every town have some form of police force, but the US also spends 36 percent of federal income taxes on a standing military. The bottom line is that in 2011 there is absolutely no reason for any citizen to “bear arms.”
Many argue that the shooting in Tucson should not call for any sort of gun control because the weapon, which Jared Loughner used to commit his heinous crime, was obtained by “legal means.” However this is precisely the problem. Ordinary citizens have absolutely no reason to possess a weapon of any kind.
No matter how hard I try, I simply cannot begin to fathom why Americans are so obsessed with this so-called “right” to bear arms. Most countries in Europe and North America (specifically Canada…eh) are perfectly free and democratic without executing their “divine right” to carry around a Colt 44.
At this point all, of you hunting enthusiasts and Constitution fanatics out there are probably about ready to come after me; and in true liberal hippie fashion all I can say to you folks is; keep your guns in your tank-top.
