Oh, where to begin? The debate surrounding gun control in the US is such a heavily contested debate that it's shocking, saddening, curious, interesting, provocative, liberating, sexualised and norrow-minded that it causes one to draw several, often self-defeating, conclusions.
As a non-US citizen, it's impossible and, potentially patronising, inappropriate to state what a country 'should do' regarding it's domestic policy. Obviously, it goes without saying, that foreign policy is fair-game to comment on as it potentially involves all of us earthlings. That said, it seems reasonable to pass comment. Afterall, in the civilised World, we cherish freedom of speech...unless you are a "whistleblower", it seems. At any rate, at the risk of pontificating, here are some thoughts.
Firstly, the debate, as it seems, regarding gun control in the US is about the screening processes to guns and the limitation on the types of guns and ammunition available to eligible citizens. On the side of those against the reforms, let's call them "pro-gun", they feel that these reforms will impinge on their constitutional right to bear arms, the 2nd amendment. As for the opposition, let's call them "anti-gun", they believe, in varying degrees, that the level of restrictions and limitation on types of firearms should be introduced and/or increased. Indeed, the debate is a bit more sophisticated that this, but a simpler initial framework serves pretty well. There is little point in dishing out statistics, they are available
online and each source will no doubt have tampered or interpreted to
meet their ends. You can find them everywhere and they are of no real
use as part of this discussion. Both Piers Morgan and Alex Jones, both
vehemently anti and pro guns respectively, have plenty of sources on
their websites where these details can be found. What I do find most
interesting, whether you're for or against guns, is the debate
surrounding the policy reforms.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect US citizens right to
possess arms in the face of danger. That is an issue I don't want to
dispute. People have the right to protect themselves. The "sanctity" of
that constitutional right is not in question for much of the "anti-gun"
side of this debate. All they wish, is for some increased control
regarding who possess guns and what types of guns they can possess.
Whether you're someone who believes that the "founding fathers" of the
US were all-knowing and wise or if you think their train of thought is
completely out of touch with modern society, is not the issue. At the
end of the day, a constitutional is in place and it should be adhered
to. That said, they are amended all the time. In Ireland, we have
referenda to allow for changes to be made that are called for and
decided by the citizens. That's not to say it is a perfect system. It's
rather flawed actually. It's also not to say that the US system is
immensely flawed, in a number of cases it's an exemplar of how
democracies should be conducted. However, to fear change that will only
act to make a situation safer, seems ludicrous.
Having spoke to numerous gun-owning US citizens, I have heard numerous arguments pro-guns. It often takes the form of "more guns = less gun violence". I fail to see the logic in this point of view, particularly when the majority of these same individuals believe that there shouldn't be more severe screening/vetting processes to avoid those, unfit to own guns, from purchasing and keeping these weapons. Many of these people also draw benign and facetious comparisons to owning a car; "it's a 2000lb deadly weapon, in the wrong hands". As daft a parallel as it is, those people are indeed right. A car IS a deadly weapon in the wrong hands. That is why people who are mentally unstable or generally incapable of driving a car safely are prohibited from doing so. It's why there are increasingly rigorous examinations to ensure that cars are driven safely by those who sit behind the wheel. I ask, in this instance, is a gun owner subject to the same rigorous testing/vetting? If so, why not? If I were a US citizen and carrying a gun, would I be arrested if I were drunk or under the influence of other substances? I would, if I drove a car. In fact, I'd most probably have my licence revoked and serve a little time in some prison somewhere. The parallels drawn between guns, cars and other objects is a little weak.
Responsible gun owners, who register all their weapons, who buy their
guns and ammunition from dealers and who use their firearms in a
responsible manner actually have little or nothing to fear. At worst, it
might mean that your Rambo style machine gun will be confiscated and
you'll be compensated for the inconvenience. It doesn't mean that you
can't still have a gun locker (if you own that many guns) full of
expensive and desirable weapons. A question that is worth asking is why
you even need that massive machine gun that can fire 100 rounds in the
blink of an eye? Also, if you are a "responsible" gun owner, who has
gone through all the necessary paperwork and vetting to own a gun of
this calibre, why are you against this process, moreover a reform of
these processes, if it prevents people who might not use these weapons
in a lawful fashion from harming/killing others? At the end of the day,
if you are who/what you say you are, then you have nothing to worry
about. If so, what?
As for the "anti-gun" groups. While I sympathise more with their side of the argument, I still respect that, in a society where there are a vast majority of sensible people, a basic right to bear arms should remain in place if it's already there. Personally, I hate guns. I am fearful of them because I have seen the damage they can do when fired both purposefully and accidentally. That said, I respect the fact that there is a constitutional allowance in the US and other countries. I also see that there are some people who take great pleasure from firing them in a safe environment and there are also those who genuinely need them for their work. Also, while I deplore hunting, I understand that there are those, i.e. farmers and people living in more rural homes with predatory wildlife, who have a genuine necessity for protection. Therefore, to call for an outright ban on guns seems hasty and irrational. But, generally speaking, the anti-gun lobbies don't want to see guns completely removed from the hands of citizens. They simply seek to have the registration, vetting and availability of firearms limited to a reasonable standard. A standard that is in-keeping with the rest of modern global society.
Gun violence is NOT a cultural phenomenon that is strictly observed in the US. It happens in just about every town, city and country in the World. It happens in places where guns are completely outlawed and happens in places where people are allowed to carry guns like they are Wyatt Earp or Annie Oakley. Indeed, in places where guns are not readily available, the black market will no doubt provide them and there is always a risk that guns, drugs and anything else that is regulated will be available somewhere and governments will always have to face that fact. However, with regulation, there is a greater opportunity to monitor and control these instances. There are also far fewer of these instances than there otherwise would be. As far as guns in the US go, there is minimal regulation.
The mere fact that people are able to buy weapons at gun-shows and are not subject to the screening and background checks that they would otherwise be forced to 'endure' is unfathomable. If there were changes made with this diabolical loophole, that would perhaps be sufficient with regards the personal restrictions of gun ownership. All that left is then REASONABLY answering the question; why do you need that crazy 'f*ck-me' AR-15? Are you that bad at hunting that you need to need to fire off 100 rounds to shoot that deer?
At the root of this debate, it seems that the actual subject matter is of less relevance to the pro-gun lobby than it is to the anti-gun lobby. The political allegiance element seems to be far stronger for the pro-gun groups than the anti-gun groups. People like Alex Jones, John Lott and Larry Pratt give the impression that if there is a reform of gun laws, particularly in Jone's case, then everything in the US constitution is up for grabs. There are a large number of pro-gun speakers who are simply jumping on the anti-establishment bandwagon. These are the people who should be most feared in this debate and are causing the most damage to the rational argument of those in the pro-gun lobby. However, people like Jesse Venture and Joshua Boston are more concerned with the actual subject matter and, for the most part, make compelling arguments. On the anti-gun side, the majority of people who lobby for gun regulation reforms are those who have personal experiences with the negative side of guns. Some have been victims of gun violence, some are relatives of those who have lost their lives as a result of the misuse of guns and others are simply those who are uncomfortable with the loose gun laws that exist in the US at both a state and federal level. It's difficult not to understand their point of view. In fact, to completely disregard them is downright insensitive. There are people like Piers Morgan who, while I personally side with his argument, sensationalise the argument and potentially damage the anti-gun's case as well, if they become too impassioned and less objective, which Morgan almost has on a number of occasions.
What both sides should decide is whether they concerned more about the actual issue of "Guns in Society: Their Role, Availability and Perception" or whether they are afraid that, if a constitutional change is made that their beloved country will be a breeding ground for change. If they are more concerned about the latter, they should politely exit the debate; they are toxic in the debate over the single-issue of gun control and will only serve to weaken the debate of whichever side they are on. If they are concerned with the former, then they have a place at the bargaining table.
A constitution, by it's evolving definition, serves to protect the state and the people within it. It is there to protect peoples basic rights and ensure that the state, as a unit, can function cohesively under a common law. However, if a people see fit they have the right to amend it. How these amendments are made is another debate in and of itself. I'm quite sure, if it were brought up for discussion, many of the same sensationalists would pick their side of argument depending on their political leanings and base much of their opinion on who was in government rather than the issue questioned.
