Gun Control or Status Quo?
I cannot recall when it happened, but the first time I found out that regular people like me and you could own guns and go out and buy them as if they went out grocery shopping, I was left in shock. Of course, I am not a US citizen, I was born and raised in Morocco and this idea was as foreign to me as the United States was. I was probably 7 or 8 and most likely I was watching a Hollywood production. However, the mere thought of having random people carry devices that could end another individual’s life or hurt them was terrifying. Having grown up in a country where only the police force and the few people who mastered the art of hunting could own firearms, I was mind blown by the idea of gun possession.
When I think of gun control and the progress it has made in the past few years, I think of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision back in 2008. I assume most of you know bits and pieces of the story, but in short, the Supreme Court decided to reverse years of precedent, by guaranteeing that the Second Amendment protected the right of any individual to possess firearms. The court rejected DC’s ban on the possession of weapons kept in the household, but it left many unresolved issues regarding the regulation of firearm possessions. The little cracks and ambiguities left after the District of Columbia v. Heller are what gave opportunities to many states and policymakers to advance their agendas regarding gun control. However, in light of the massacres that took place in Orlando, San Bernardino and the daily shootings of innocent people on US soil, one cannot avoid but question why the government is unable to restrict and act upon the purchase of firearms, especially by individuals who are on the no-fly list?
We have seen politicians over and over again make efforts, but the House of Representatives being led by the Republican majority makes the hopes of any gun restrictions very unlikely. If you remember the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the Democrats were the majority in the Senate and they attempted to impose a background-check requirement which quickly went down the trash due to the Republican filibuster. Additionally, just last year the Obama administration developed an initiative to ban any individual on the terror watch list from purchasing any weapons or explosives within the US, but of course, the Republicans in the Senate blocked the initiative. So I find it very shocking when “people who tweet” blame the President for these types of shootings when the legislators are at fault because they would rather preserve their status quo- and the Orlando massacre is one of the many pieces of evidence.
The Sit-in last week that Paul Ryan called a “publicity stunt” for the Democrats is a sign of despair as well as an underlining of the failures of legislation in the United States. However, people like Representative Louise Gohmert shouting “Radical Islam! Radical Islam killed these people!” makes me question the mental capabilities of people like him in the Congress. Which is why somebody shouted back at him, “Why do you want to let terrorists buy a gun?” In vain, some Republicans like Steve King of Iowa still tweeted, “I’ve had it with the gun grabbing Democrats and their sit in and anti 2nd amendment jihad. I’m going to go home and buy a new gun.” Really Steve King? Really?
Anyhow, this is my two cents about the issue. However, I wanted to include different perspectives of the issue at hand, which is why I asked some of my acquaintances to answer a few questions, or rather thought-provoking curiosities about where they stand in regards to gun control and the 2nd Amendment. I am not one to conceal what the other side thinks, which is why I made sure to include a conservative’s responses in here.
The first person is Sophie Isabel Lichter from Amherst College
What does the second amendment mean to you? To your community? To the US? ( if you are not American, does your country support gun ownership or no?) –
I grew up in Germany, a country where collective guilt and collective change have defined the last 75 or so years. Violence in no form is tolerated, the possession of weapons is limited to sporting equipment, hunting equipment, and professional equipment. My parents were scared for me when I came to the US; they perceive this as a very dangerous country where everyone on the street can kill you from a distance and a hospital can refuse to continue your treatment if you don’t pay your bills.I also feel that today, the omnipresence of guns in the US actually instill more fear than a sense of safety. The second amendment to me actually had the opposite in mind: when it was written, the people it was written for were new to this country with its vast wilderness, and they were fleeing from random violence. The 2nd amendment was meant to protect where there was no police, no government oversight, and no legal system. So the 2nd amendment is a historical artifact of its time, in my opinion.Thus gun laws should be adjusted to be fit the society and country of the time. Just like the 2nd amendment fit 1789, the current laws and amendments should reflect America in 2016.
What is your stance on gun control? What are your motives? Have your opinions about it ever switched? If so why?
I was terrified of guns before I got here; again, all exposure I ever had was via images of death and destruction. Over the course of living here, I have recognized that hunting and shooting can be enjoyable, and also that many people here love very remotely and thus derive subjective safety from owning a gun to defend against possible intruders or wildlife. My current opinion is informed by both views: people should have the right to bear arms, but with a number of restrictions, namely: 1) every weapon must be registered with a specific purpose, such as hunting etc. 2) every category of weapon must come with specific restrictions, for example only one self-defense weapon per person per household, at most a .45 bullet, at most 12 bullets to a magazine 3) Arms for which the purpose is “kill the enemy” (assault rifles, military-style armor of all sorts including grenades etc) are only to be used by the military for their intended purpose 4) every person buying a weapon must have a) valid photo ID B ) a gun license from a certified training course for the category of gun (hunting license for hunting weapon, self-defense/handgun license for handgun etc) C) a clean police record in writing, not on the anti-terror watch list, not on any “wanted” list internationally D) a secure storage location for their gun and E) minimum age should be 21, 18 with exception, and a mandatory 1 month period between ordering the weapon and receipt of the weapon, during which any sort of police contact or emergency psychiatric admission would disqualify from receiving the gun.
Why is it that some people are more worried about reproductive rights and abortions than gun control?
Because reproductive rights affect young, often distressed people that are assumed not to make competent decisions and thus need more legal guidelines (as well as involving a potential voiceless human), whereas gun ownership is seen as an “adult” topic for which everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Anything else you want to add? Do you have any other resources regarding this that people interested in your view can refer to? A blog? A website?I love to talk about these things, so feel free to refer people if it comes up. I really hope that one day my proposed regulations will become reality
The second person was William Z. Nardi from Roger Williams University
What does the second amendment mean to you? To your community? To the US? ( if you are not American, does your country support gun ownership or no?)
I am an American Conservative. As a Conservative, I conserve the values of the constitution. While I cannot speak for my community where I live, the conservative community preserves the right to bear arms.
What is your stance on gun control? What are your motives? Have your opinions about it ever switched? If so why?
I am completely opposed to gun control. My reason is because I do not believe we should infringe upon the right to bear arms. In the eyes of a liberal, that may seem hypocritical because we also have the right to life. However, simply owning a gun does not mean death. That means protection. If citizens did not have guns, then crime rates would soar. What would stop anyone with a black market smuggled gun from robbing you if they knew you were unarmed? That is why the cities in the United States with the most gun control have the highest amounts of crime. You could claim that the police are supposed to take care of crime, but they almost always show up after the crime has been committed. The following argument from the Women’s Self-defense Institute explains the flaws in using police solely to deter crime:
When we talk to people about violence and what they would do when confronted with violence, the response is always the same. “I would just call 911 for help.” There’s this false sense of security that we have created with the 911 system that has people believing that with a single call, a swat team will be dispatched immediately to save you and your family within moments of the call. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth. So what is the average-police-response-time to a 911 call? According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes. The Department of Justice, with their statistical prowess, reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour. Interpretation? If you live in an upper-income area you probably are privy to the 4 minute response time, while middle to rural areas will see a much longer response time. Now here is where things get interesting. Even though the Department of Justice determined that the average police response time to a 911 call is 4 minutes, the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is 90 seconds. That translates to you being robbed/injured/maimed/raped/murdered and waiting for an additional 2 and a half minutes for the police to arrive. The truth of the matter is that the police will almost always arrive AFTER the crime has happened and the criminal has gone. The truth is that the police are not your bodyguards. They cannot be at all places at once. And thanks to our Supreme Court, they don’t have to be. The Castle Rock vs. Gonzales case is just one of many which says that the police cannot be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order that lead to the murder of her three children. The reality is that you are on your own for at least 4 minutes or more. Anyone who has been in any type of altercation knows that it only takes seconds to inflict serious injury. It’s up to you to defend yourself. The police cannot be everywhere. As a citizen, you are accountable for your own personal safety.
Why is it that some people are more worried about reproductive rights and abortions than gun control?
I can’t speak for anyone else and this question isn’t worded too clearly.
–I asked if I could clarify my confusing question or whether that was the extent of his answer, William preferred to not have me clarify my question.
Anything else you want to add? Do you have any other resources regarding this that people interested in your view can refer to? A blog? A website?
Yes, this.
And last but not least is Alicia Yeye Kysar of Columbia University
What does the second amendment mean to you? To your community? To the US? ( if you are not American, does your country support gun ownership or no?)
I believe that the Second Amendment is a collective, rather than individual, right, which guarantees people the protection of a well-regulated militia armed with guns, but which does not guarantee individuals the right to own guns themselves personally. Significant legal scholarship supports this view, but it is not the view that the courts have taken in rulings on gun control.
What is your stance on gun control? What are your motives? Have your opinions about it ever switched? If so why?
I believe that there is no justification for assault weapons or automatic weapons to be available to civilians. I believe that ideally there would be no need or use for handguns, and thus they could also be banned, but I realize that many people find them useful for self-defense, especially those who live in areas so rural that it can take police officers several minutes to respond to a 911 call. Thus, if handguns are stored securely, with all the appropriate child safety locks if relevant, and if they are only sold to those who pass adequate background checks and after a sufficient waiting period of at least three days, I believe that they can justifiably be legal.
Why is it that some people are more worried about reproductive rights and abortions than gun control?
Many people believe that abortion should be illegal and that women’s reproductive rights should be limited, but that gun-rights should not be similarly limited, and I think that there are several reasons for the apparent disparity in the two beliefs. The predominant reason, I believe, is that gun ownership has been a part of American culture and history since before it was even a country, as soon as European settlers brought firearms over with them, but abortion has not publicly been such a major part of American history. The firearms were unfortunately used violently in some cases, to acquire new territory and to colonize land, but in other cases, they were used often for hunting for food. When the United States was formed and the Constitution was ratified, guns were regarded as part of a necessary defense against the possible tyranny of the government, and as such were the subject of the Second Amendment.
When the Constitution was written, most guns were muskets or other highly inefficient firearms that had to be reloaded frequently. Today, automatic weapons are widespread and readily accessible, and they can inflict devastating damage and casualties in a very short period of time with very little skill or training required for the shooter, as the United States has seen repeatedly in the last several years, and which has become even more apparent since the tragic attack in Orlando on June 12th.
Even though firearm technology has advanced over the centuries to become even deadlier, the belief that ownership of guns is not only necessary to self-defense, but that it is also an American right, has remained largely unchanged.
Women historically have often tried to control their reproduction and have for centuries endured dangerous, often ineffective abortions, and highly secretive abortions, but only in the twentieth century did abortion become a topic that was discussed in politics. Thus, abortion does not have the recorded and recognized place in American history that firearms do, and it does not have an amendment that explicitly guarantees it, as firearms appear to have in the Second Amendment.
Another reason for the greater acceptance of guns than abortion is the gender breakdown in government, particularly among legislators. As of 2015, there were 541 individuals in Congress, and 108 of those Congresspeople were women, a record high. Although it is an accomplishment that Congress has hit its record high of Congresswomen, just under 20 percent of Congresspeople today are women, meaning that 80 percent of Congresspeople, by definition, have no direct experience with pregnancy, abortion, or women’s reproductive rights, and yet seem to insist on legislating all three. All 541 Congresspeople, meanwhile, could hypothetically be gun owners, given that there is no gender requirement to using a gun.A lesser reason for the greater acceptance of guns than abortion is that many Americans of all different faiths have interpreted their religious writings and books to believe that their religion bans abortion, and in some cases contraception. This issue of religious belief is one that anti-abortion advocates often cite. It is not my or anybody’s place to determine how anybody should interpret his or her religion and religious texts, but one of the central tenets of American government is that there is a division between religion and state. As long as abortions are not made mandatory, then the fact that they are arguably prohibited in some religions is not a reason to make abortion illegal: those who believe that it is prohibited by their religious beliefs are not being forced to have abortions, but they must not prevent other people who hold different beliefs from having access to abortions.
A lesser reason for the greater acceptance of guns than abortion is that many Americans of all different faiths have interpreted their religious writings and books to believe that their religion bans abortion, and in some cases contraception. This issue of religious belief is one that anti-abortion advocates often cite. It is not my or anybody’s place to determine how anybody should interpret his or her religion and religious texts, but one of the central tenets of American government is that there is a division between religion and state. As long as abortions are not made mandatory, then the fact that they are arguably prohibited in some religions is not a reason to make abortion illegal: those who believe that it is prohibited by their religious beliefs are not being forced to have abortions, but they must not prevent other people who hold different beliefs from having access to abortions.
