PA Bill Number: SB1198
Title: In plants and plant products, providing for plant and pollinator protection; conferring powers and duties on the Department of Agriculture and ...
Description: In plants and plant products, providing for plant and pollinator protection; conferring powers and duties on the Department of Agriculture and .. ...
Last Action: Referred to AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Last Action Date: May 17, 2024
Could new laws reduce criminal gun use? Be cautious of restrictions :: 08/10/2015
Tragically, the United States is again embroiled in a rhetoric-filled gun-control debate. This debate seems to happen too often in the United States because of our cherished right to bear arms, and our unfortunate dilemma of too many mass shootings.
One mass shooting is too many. It is sickening to see the loss of life. It is an atrocity, and the United States must do something to prevent future mass shootings.
But are stricter gun-control laws the answer?
The president seems to think so. Recently, in an interview with the BBC, President Obama stated that the lack of commonsense gun-control laws was the “greatest frustration of his presidency.”
This statement may have been hyperbole, but I think most people are for commonsense gun laws, including concealed-carry permit-holders.
But there is a deeper issue here.
RESTRICTING GUN rights has to be done carefully, and must be limited. This is a right cherished in the U.S. Constitution – in the Second Amendment, which 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.”
There is much academic debate in its interpretation. I don’t want to re-ignite this debate too much, though I do see the argument that this amendment contains two clauses: one referring to state militias, and one referring to the individual right.
Regardless, even if the Second Amendment is strictly for state militias, the Ninth and 10th Amendments still contain within them the theoretical right for individuals to carry weapons. The Founders thought it necessary for people to have this right. Why? To protect liberty and individual prosperity from the insecurity posed by others and, more importantly, from the government itself.
One of the major safeguards against government tyranny is that citizens have the right to arm themselves in the event of government usurpation or some form of coup d’etat. This natural right is reserved not just in the Constitution, but in some of the most memorable sayings from our Founding Fathers. Jefferson once wrote, in the first draft of the Virginia Constitution, “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
In his A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, John Adams wrote, “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.” Further, writing in the Boston Gazette, Adams noted, “Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.”
Indeed, one cannot surrender a right given by Nature. But in the face of current events, why shouldn’t gun laws be tightened to preserve public safety?
BECAUSE LAW-ABIDING gun-owners – regardless of what the pundits and politicians state – are not the problem.
Those who take the time to learn how to use a weapon properly, and go through proper licensing, training and practice, do not commit violent gun crimes, as the president seems to imply.
One can find statistics on both sides of the argument. Do a simple Google scholar search, and you will be able to find articles that manipulate data for both views. But let us take a commonsense approach.
California, a state with the strictest gun laws in the United States, has the most gun violence in the United States. If more gun control was the solution, why hasn’t it worked in California?
Further, Obama’s old stomping grounds of Chicago is one of the toughest cities in the United States on gun control. Yet, how many people died on the Fourth of July weekend there in the past few years because of gun violence?
Gun restrictions harm the natural right to own weapons for people who already would do no harm, generally. Gun laws do not stop criminals from getting guns. People who want to commit mass shootings will find a way to get a gun.
Gun restrictions will not stop guns from getting in the hands of those who wish to use them improperly. They will only stop law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves in the event of a tragedy. This is common sense. How do anti-gun advocates not see this? If a criminal is criminal, why would a law restricting gun rights stop the criminal from possessing said gun? It won’t.
FURTHER, STUDIES demonstrate that most criminals target areas or people where they believe no guns will be present. Think about the targets of choice recently, or targets of opportunity: schools (no-gun zone); churches (no-gun zone); and, shockingly, military outposts (severely restricted gun zones). It is rare for a criminal or mass shooting to take place where it is well-known that others will have the capacity for self-protection.
This same logic applies in international relations and war studies. States don’t attack other states that can reasonably defend themselves and respond with second-strike capabilities that may overwhelm the initial strike. For simplicity’s sake, remember MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. States don’t fight other states when they don’t believe they can win with minimal cost.
The same is true for most criminals. They won’t usually attack when they are not sure of the level of armed resistance.
This is not to say that there should not be better laws on the books. As with every law and part of the Constitution, there are and should be limits. Common sense proposes universal background checks; a mandatory waiting period before one can purchase a firearm; a medical background check limiting who can own and carry weapons based on mental history; a proper training course, graduation and certificate; and yes, with all apologies to my friends who want no restrictions whatsoever on guns, it is reasonable to limit types of semi-automatic/automatic rifles and magazine sizes.
There should be reasonable restrictions. But the key word is “reasonable.” Be cautious of how many restrictions there are. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that restricting guns will limit gun violence. It probably will increase it, as the cases of California and Chicago demonstrate.
Always remember: Gun ownership and self-defense are natural rights enshrined within our political tradition to protect ourselves against insecurity and, in the worst-case possibility, government tyranny. Be reasonable.
I await your educated responses, and pray for all victims of senseless violence.
(The writer is an assistant political science professor at Georgia Regents University.)
