Strive For Balance In Gun Control
Dan Cunningham
Issue date: 11/30/07 Section: Commentary
- Page 1 of 2 next >
On Nov. 20, the Supreme Court announced its interest in deciding the scope of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Previously, the Supreme Court has often sided with the states right to legislate gun control laws and has generally interpreted the Constitution to focus on a militia rather than individual rights. This time, however, the court intends to focus on the amendment itself rather than relevant cases pertaining to it. Depending on the verdict, the outcome of this trial could either allow for heavy gun control restrictions or denounce them.
Activists from both sides reach a sort of cul-de-sac in the gun control debate. Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.
Notice the difference in approach. Pro-gun activists often treat individual responsibility as a given, and fight for human rights. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety. Somehow, they both managed to debate on two different planes.
In more recent history, gun violence reached a peak in 1993 after a seemingly unusual spike in 1988. Later, this spike decreased substantially to pre-1988 levels, a level of violence that has persisted until today. This strange jump in crime, followed by an equally unusual decrease, was an almost uniform change across the country. This implies that some mechanism in policy could have been the cause of the surge.
To consider this crime surge, look no further than the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act did several things that combine about as well as ammonia and bleach. First, the law made it illegal to transfer guns from legal owners to unauthorized persons while expanding the definition of "prohibited" citizens. Second, it shielded gun owners and dealers from submitting records of who purchased firearms or ammunition. Third, it slackened restrictions on transporting firearms between state borders. Fourth, it decreased the amounts of searches that could be performed by the government without a warrant. Finally, it outlawed all fully automatic weapons made after 1986.
Activists from both sides reach a sort of cul-de-sac in the gun control debate. Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.
Notice the difference in approach. Pro-gun activists often treat individual responsibility as a given, and fight for human rights. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety. Somehow, they both managed to debate on two different planes.
In more recent history, gun violence reached a peak in 1993 after a seemingly unusual spike in 1988. Later, this spike decreased substantially to pre-1988 levels, a level of violence that has persisted until today. This strange jump in crime, followed by an equally unusual decrease, was an almost uniform change across the country. This implies that some mechanism in policy could have been the cause of the surge.
To consider this crime surge, look no further than the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act did several things that combine about as well as ammonia and bleach. First, the law made it illegal to transfer guns from legal owners to unauthorized persons while expanding the definition of "prohibited" citizens. Second, it shielded gun owners and dealers from submitting records of who purchased firearms or ammunition. Third, it slackened restrictions on transporting firearms between state borders. Fourth, it decreased the amounts of searches that could be performed by the government without a warrant. Finally, it outlawed all fully automatic weapons made after 1986.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 16
Ed Pearson
posted 11/30/07 @ 9:50 AM EST
Lets think about what happens when the Democrats control the whole government. They implement very strict (no more guns) policy's. The NRA would grow so much that they might just replace the Democratic party. (Continued…)
Bob Smith
posted 11/30/07 @ 10:34 AM EST
Gun Control is hitting your target.
james johns
posted 11/30/07 @ 11:13 AM EST
the second admenment is the only granty of the constution.to control gun is to take away from the granty of it.chances are we won`t have to defend yhe constution from another country. (Continued…)
Harry Gearheart
posted 11/30/07 @ 4:53 PM EST
The author of this article wrote;
Activists from both sides reach a sort of cul-de-sac in the gun control debate. Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. (Continued…)
Guy Smith
posted 11/30/07 @ 9:43 PM EST
It is a curious notion that the Supreme Court is vested with the power to find a "middle of the road verdict." It is not their within the scope of their duties (those duties defined by 'the people') to make such value judgements. (Continued…)
Me
posted 12/01/07 @ 6:10 AM EST
The "Lead" in a pencil is graphite not Lead.
Most anti-gun advocates have as little knowledge about guns as you do about pencils and propose equally ineffective laws like Clinton's "scary looking gun" ban. (Continued…)
albie
posted 12/01/07 @ 9:35 AM EST
Death of innocents is the human cost of infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
Carl in Chicago
posted 12/01/07 @ 9:38 AM EST
"Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. ... Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety. (Continued…)
Ben Miner
posted 12/01/07 @ 11:08 AM EST
The ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical government. Firearms registration is antithetical to this; the State should not have an inventory of firearms owned by law-abiding citizens. (Continued…)
Ken Baker
posted 12/01/07 @ 3:56 PM EST
Get your facts straight. Background checks are still done on all firearms purchases made from licensed dealers and even from private owners at gun shows in some states. (Continued…)
Post a Comment