Common Sense Ombudsman: Guns

Bang bang.

10 years have past since Columbine, and the effect of that day on our culture is still debated. Certain corners of the media are wondering aloud today why support for gun control "petered out" in the decade since the massacre. Meanwhile, other groups long for a United States where we celebrate national holidays, including U.N. Day, by firing automatic weapons into the air. A microcosm of how foolish we've become about guns is the recent Sixty Minutes piece titled The Way of the Gun, which I had hoped would somehow involve Bruce Lee, but didn't. Despite having a reasonable central theme (closing the gunshow loophole) Leslie Stahl still came across as slanted and shrill, and the pro-gun guy countered Stahl's "Couldn't we....make every state require a background check?" with a witty "Or we could make every state not require a background check."

The media is partially to blame. Whenever there is a Virginia Tech or a Columbine, the media coverage is overwhelming and hacky journalists browbeat and lecture the public about gun control. This is distasteful for two reasons. First, tragedy should not be used as a convenient spring board for forwarding a political agenda. Second, TWO has long wondered why the media treats 25 people killed in the same place as more important than 25 people killed in different locations around the country. If gun violence is rampant and unacceptable then it's newsworthy. It shouldn't take an anomalous event to stir journalists from their torpor.

The people are also to blame. When something enters the "culture war" realm, forget about having any serious discussion on the merits. Aside from discussions about abortion and gay marriage or any debate occurring within six months of a presidential election, an intelligent dialogue about guns is one of the most difficult to come by. No one really cares any more about what the actual utility to society is of gun availability and gun control. Arguments boil down to "We need to ban guns to protect ourselves from the gun violence!" and "We need more guns to protect ourselves from the gun violence!" and never get much further. And, in the end, both are really just guises for saying "I'm a liberal" and "I hate liberals", respectively.

This is reflected not only in things like the Sixty Minutes piece, but also in the information universities, lobbying groups, government institutions and think tanks produce. TWO was amazed, when researching for this entry, how little meaningful information there was that could contribute to a discussion on gun control. Figures about crimes committed with legally held guns versus illegally held guns are, aside from anecdotes, virtually non-existent. There are no real estimates on how illegally held guns become illegal. Are they smuggled into the country? Purchased privately? Aside from vague anecdotes, no one knows. While there is some good info here and here and here, there is not a lot, in my opinion, that would help quantify and predict the effect on society of more or less gun control.

Below I present some basic facts and a premise that reasonable people should accept and then three suggestions for improvement. I realize that this may come across as a bit preachy, but then again, you are reading my blog.

1) Accept the basic facts:

- Citizens have a right to own weapons. The 2nd Amendment is clearly written and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as providing an individual right.

- Legally owned weapons are involved in so few crimes and accidents that it should really be viewed as negligible.

- Under current laws, an increase in legal guns equals an increase in illegal guns. When the gunshow loop hole (described in link above) is combined with straw purchasers (people with clear FBI background checks who purchase weapons for criminals) there are essentially no actual barriers to criminals purchasing firearms.

2) Accepting the above as facts, and operating under the premise that reasonable people want others to be able to protect themselves but want to minimize the likelihood of gun violence, TWO offers the following:

- The gunshow loophole must be closed. The gunshow loophole, as described above, is a crazy exception to the rule that all purchasers at a gunshow must have FBI background checks -- that is, if you buy from a private person (not a dealer) at a gunshow, you do NOT have to have your background checked. In the Sixty Minutes clip, the gun guy's only argument against this was that the 2nd amendment doesn't require a background check. I half expected him to put on an oversized styrofoam hat and start shooting pistols in the air.

Yosemite Sam aside, there are all kinds of federal gun laws on the books that limit people's ability to own and transfer guns. A law primarily geared to stop sales of guns to people who are already ineligible to use them would seem to not further infringe anyone's gun rights. And the limitation on sales by the legal owner is not more onerous than already existing laws. All reasonable people should support federal laws closing the gunshow loophole.

- Second, rather than forcing an automatic weapons ban (which won't pass anyway) down the throats of the NRA and the millions of Americans who want them - consider a more novel approach. Our premise was that we wanted people to be able to protect themselves while limiting gun violence. Automatic weapons are good for protection, but in the wrong hands, can be abnormally and extremely dangerous. As such, statutory or strict liability imposed on the registered owner of any automatic weapon could be very effective in thwarting haphazard gun sales and more fairly distributing blame to culpable parties. Unless reported as stolen, the registered owner (or dealer/corporation) would retain some liability for criminal acts by a third party and would likely think twice before selling to someone under the table or out the back door. While this is a somewhat progressive idea, it is not without some precedent.

- Third, a limit on bulk sales to individuals will help slow the trickle of guns to criminals through straw purchasers. A limit to one automatic weapon every 1 or 2 months is hardly draconian (shockingly, some people go their whole lives without owning a single automatic weapon) and would not prevent ordinary, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Meanwhile, it would be an important step towards limiting the availability of weapons for criminals.

In conclusion, bang bang.