Gun ownership is certainly a controversial topic, but one that definitely is worth exploring. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say upfront that I spent my teen years living in Britain - a state where gun ownership is very restrictive. However, I truly want to take an honest and open look at this topic from both sides. So, here we go...
In the US Constitution, Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms (Ratified 12/15/1791) 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.
What exactly does this mean?
If you listen to the NRA, it has a pretty literal and open interpretation designed to not limit in virtually any case the right of citizens (or even residents) to own and use guns. The basic premise is the need to safeguard the public's right to protect itself from unreasonable governments as was the case at the time of the US war of independence. Outwardly a fair minded intent, but lets consider the circumstances prevalent when these words were written. In the 1700's, this country was still limited to mostly the 13 east coast states. Beyond these territories, the continent was still essentially "wild", with plenty of dangers present. Even within the civilized areas, population was still quite spread out and individuals still needed to defend their lands and families without easy access to police and military assistance. Furthermore, people still hunted, not for sport but as a means to put food on their table. And yes, perhaps in those days, when government only had foot soldiers, muskets, horses and some cannons, citizens still could put up effective levels of resistance.Now however, can we really make an argument that your typical individual or even semi organized groups could take these:
And effectively fend of governments with these:
Now, I know that many out there would say yes indeed they could. Where there is a will, there is a way. Maybe...but I suspect that those people would get creamed. So the following argument would revolve around the slippery slope. If a few gun restrictions are implemented, pretty soon every gun would be taken away. Do people really believe this? I am sure some do.
I do believe that there are some definite reasons for those that want to own guns to do so. Self defense. Hunting. Because they simply like them. But the question then becomes: do those people really need to own semi or fully automatic operational weapons? 50 cal armor piercing rifles? 15, 20 or more weapons? Are those reasonable? I am sure many would say that it is their god given right to own whatever and however many guns they want. Perhaps in a perfect world yes. But we live in a very imperfect world, in which even if one in a 100 or even 1 in 1000 goes nuts and uses such armories to conduct mass killings, is not the greater good of the majority society worth balancing against the rights of a small minority of gun owners wanting to own large weapon caches?
To the last point, the counter argument usually is: with the right training, the right non-excessive background checks, and perhaps by allowing everyone to carry guns, such things would not happen - but do we really want to live in the wild west again with people walking around armed and ready? And even with all such actions, we still have the occasional nut that goes on killing sprees. People would say that such people would have killed even if guns were less available. But is that really the case. Could some one really kill 5, 10 or more people with a knife or machete? In general terms, societies with more restrictive arms laws do seem to have less incidents of mass gun related killings. BUT I emphasize "less", because there have been problems like these in Britain and recently in Germany - one of the most restrictive gun ownership countries around. Also, there does seem to be some vague evidence that gun carrying states do have some lower incidents of violent crimes - but I am not sure if this is conclusive.
The final issue that really places a giant hurdle in the path of my strongly advocating rigid gun restrictions is the simple fact that there are already so many guns out there in America. The reality is that there are way too many voting constituents out there for there ever to be a mass collection of existing guns. The political will is missing. The practicality of elimination is not realistic. And frankly the societal acceptance is too entrenched.
So what if anything can be done? One interesting idea I have seen offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic is the following changes to the 2nd Amendment wording:
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.
Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.
This change is designed to more realistically reflect the real world reasons for gun ownership in the US instead of the supposed militia rationale. The use of the term "reasonable" will of course insult those that want large and heavy weapon arsenal, but should we not try to strike a balance between gun owners and societal safety?
The purpose of the above is to ask both sides to talk, be realistic and find a workable compromise. Anti-gun people need to acknowledge the realities on the ground and the legitimate rights of people to own guns for law abiding reasons. Pro-gun people need to accept the idea that some limits are needed to protect society and that some test of reasonableness needs to be applied. As long as the two sides simply rail against each other, not listening and refusing to find a middle ground, all we will get is a continued list of dead Americans and plenty of fodder for sensationalist news stories. Yes, training will help. But I really do not think that is the full solution. Let people have more thorough background checks. Restrict sales of certain weapons that have no reasonable civilian use like 50 cal armor piercing rifles. Have better and ongoing means of maintaining registrations. Balance that with strong insurance to not let that process lead to gun-owner's fears that the information will be used to take the guns away. No, I do not have all the answers to how to do all this and satisfy all sides. But this topic has been around for a very long time. I am certain there have to be some workable solutions out there from both sides.
I welcome any and all ideas to move this topic forward and find a way to safe lives. Don't you think America owes it to itself?
PS - just want to point out for those gun aficionados that I have always been interested in military history, am quite knowledgeable about WWII hand weapons, and have many gun-loving friends. Those friends and I often have spirited but respectful discussions about gun ownership that usually end in agreeing to disagree. However, from a societal standpoint such a standoff, even in its friendly form, is not a solution long term.
