San Diego State University’s Independent Student Newspaper Since 1913

The Daily Aztec

San Diego State University’s Independent Student Newspaper Since 1913

The Daily Aztec




San Diego State University’s Independent Student Newspaper Since 1913

The Daily Aztec

Where do you stand in the gun control debate?

Kenneth Leonard

Senior Staff Columnist

The gun control debate rages on in U.S. In the wake of the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the discourse intensified substantially and it seems as though lawmakers may be prepared to create stricter gun control laws.

On the Jan. 7 episode of Piers Morgan’s TV program, radio host Alex Jones brought the debate to a crescendo when he pointed his finger in Morgan’s face and threatened, “I’m here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms.”

During the interview, Jones represented the pro-gun establishment perfectly. Throughout the conversations the same tired arguments came up again and again, providing examples of why the very essence of how our nation thinks about this debate needs to change.

Truthfully, the debate is not about guns at all. It is about personal rights and our Constitution. As the Second Amendment advocates clamor about constitutional rights, one begins to wonder if these staunch constitutionalists are aware the Constitution was designed so it could be amended to meet the needs of the people it protects. Consider the issues of slavery and women’s suffrage. The Constitution failed to provide certain rights to slaves and women, therefore it was altered. In fact, it was improved. The truth is, the Constitution is an inherently flawed document designed to be flexible and change with time.

I can hear the pro-gun Americans cry out, “but the founders were supportive of gun ownership.” Yes, I know. James Madison said, “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.” This idea has been distorted and warped until truly idiotic, yet immensely popular people such as Jones go on television and say, “America was born on guns and whiskey. It’s true we’re a
violent society.”

Herein lies the biggest problem with pro-gun arguments: Outspoken morons who don’t understand history are nostalgic for an era of wild gun-toting patriots which never existed, and attempt to use their skewed interpretation of 1776-era thinking to solve social problems
in 2013.

Jones was partially correct about one thing during his heated diatribe on CNN. “The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting,” Jones said early in the interview. “It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs.”

The right to gun ownership is clearly intended as a deterrent to abuses of power from the government. It seems obvious the Founding Fathers intended the balance of power to remain in the hands of the people, a very noble idea, but men such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson lived in an era when weaponry was downright primitive compared to what exists today. The founders were intelligent people, but they could not have foretold the existence of drones, cruise missiles and stealth fighters. Face the music, folks. We are outgunned by the military and there is nothing any group of private citizens could do if it all boiled down to an “us vs. them” scenario. The very idea of private citizens contending with the military is ridiculous and all of the macho posturing among gun owners who swear to rise up against our allegedly tyrannical government with lunatics such as Jones is
just comical.

Even though the idea of gun ownership as insurance against the government is absurd in 2013, many people feel very strongly about the need to own weapons for personal protection, which is understandable. We certainly have a right to safety and self-defense and as far as I can tell there is not a single legislator who wants to take these rights away. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has become a target for the pro-gun crowd, but when reading the legislation she proposed, it becomes apparent the senator is protective of citizens’ rights to obtain weapons for self-defense and personal protection. Feinstein’s proposal would ban 120 specific firearms, as well as specific semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns with “one or more military characteristics” and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with high-capacity magazines. If this is unreasonable to you, I have to ask, what kind of assault you are expecting to defend yourself from? Are weapons such as the Bushmaster .223, used by Adam Lanza to gun down nearly 30 people, necessary or safe for private sale? Remember, the weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting were legally obtained and owned by Lanza’s mother. Incidentally, Lanza’s mother was his first victim, so apparently those weapons didn’t serve much of a defensive purpose after all.
When questioned about military-style weapons being available for private citizens, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal said the M-4 Carbine he carried while in the military used a .223 caliber round, which was designed to cause “devastating” damage to a human body.

“It’s designed to do that, and that’s what our soldiers ought to carry,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Jan. 8. “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

It’s time for a new dialogue regarding guns in this country. Self-interested parties need to shelve their ideologies and focus on policies that will promote the most beneficial results for our society. At least 62 mass shootings have taken place in the U.S. since 1982 and most of the weapons used in the shootings were purchased legally. Something is wrong with how our country does business when it comes to both the sale of firearms and romanticizing gun violence. Total removal of guns is not the answer, but neither is flooding the market with assault weapons. However, the most insidious problem of all has nothing to do with the guns. The biggest problem is a lack of meaningful discussion on this sensitive and overly politicized topic.

 

Matthew Smith

Staff Columnist

Gun control has been thrust into the spotlight in the wake of last month’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Since then, President Barack Obama signed several executive orders and has requested action from Congress, such as the reenactment of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, limiting the amount of bullets a magazine can carry and funding further research on gun violence. The anger and shock this tragic event caused is understandable. However, it should not be used to push gun control policies that are ineffective and infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

The fact is, we don’t need gun control to curb gun violence. Violent crime in the U.S. has been declining during the last 20 years. In 2011, the murder rate in the U.S. was 4.7 per 100,000 people, the lowest since 1963. In fact, the decline started before the Assault Weapons Ban was enacted in 1994 and continued after it expired. The homicide rate reached a peak of 9.8 in 1991, and declined to 9 by the time the law was enacted. It fell to 5.5 when the law expired in 2004, and declined in 2008 to 5.4. Before the Assault Weapons Ban was applied, so-called assault weapons accounted for less than 6 percent of all gun crimes nationally.

The decline has continued on a local level in states and cities with lax gun control laws or where previous gun control restrictions have been voided. The homicide rate in Texas, which already has some of the most lenient gun laws in the country, declined from 6.1 to 4.4 since the Assault Weapons Ban expired. In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns inside the city. At the time, there was a lot of moaning from anti-gun advocates who claimed D.C.’s already high crime rate would soar after the Supreme Court decision. However, the decision had the opposite affect and D.C.’s murder rate has been cut nearly in half, from 31.5 to 17.5, its lowest level since 1966.

Stricter gun control laws are not going to stop tragic shootings, such as Sandy Hook. Mass shootings, such as Columbine and Santana high school, both happened while
the Assault Weapons Ban was
the law of the land. As shocking as these events are, they represent a minority of the overall gun violence that takes place. A much larger portion of gun violence comes from gang and drug wars, which have decreased dramatically because of more efficient measures
taken by local governments and police departments to tackle gang violence.

Strict gun control laws in other countries such as Mexico have done little to curb gun violence, which increased to a rate of 15.6 murders per 100,000 last year. The increase is a result of the breakout of the drug wars, where cartels have still managed to get their hands on weapons, such as AK-47s despite Mexican gun control laws.

If there’s anything we can learn from Mexico’s ineffective gun control laws, it’s how gun control does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of lawbreakers. Gun control isn’t going to magically force lawbreakers to give their weapons up. How are gun laws supposed to work anyways? If a specific weapon, for example a shotgun, is banned, are we then supposed to force people who have legally bought shotguns before to give them up? Such a tactic would amount
to theft.

Instead, gun control restricts gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. When you take guns away from people who obey the law, they’re left defenseless when someone breaks into their home and attacks them. Furthermore, most gun owners have never used a gun against another human being. Guns are popular for outdoor sports, such as hunting or simply to collect. Why should the rights of law-abiding citizens, which are protected by the Second Amendment, be sacrificed for a small percentage of people who don’t obey laws anyways and won’t have any intention of following gun control laws?

We do need to do more to fight gun violence and crime. Some proposals, such as background checks, make sense but we shouldn’t restrict gun access for the people who pass such checks. Instead, we should enforce the laws we already have and use the strategies which have been proven to curb violent crime. Local police departments have switched from hard-line tactics, such as a militaristic patrol of gang controlled neighborhoods to using tip lines and building relationships with local residents, which have proven effective. Programs aimed at educating children and teens about the dangers of gang violence have also proven effective.

School violence needs to be treated the same way. Anti-bullying programs will do a lot to stop school violence. People don’t kill just because they have access to guns. There are underlying causes, such as poverty, unemployment, poor mental health and unfair treatment by others. Tackling these issues will do a lot more to tackle gun violence in schools and on the streets than infringing on a person’s right to bear arms.

Activate Search
San Diego State University’s Independent Student Newspaper Since 1913
Where do you stand in the gun control debate?