Dear Democrats, Where Do You Stand On Gun Control?
I’m a Republican, and it’s become hard to talk to my friends about the issues that matter to me. Politics should be a contest of ideas, but instead it sounds more like a late-night talk show; a popular comment lacking real substance, personal accusations at the expense of anyone who disagrees, and then an echo chamber of applause that takes nuanced debate and replaces it with mindless acquiescence — but it feels good to be a part of the crowd that’s clapping. It goes both ways, and I’ve been in that audience before.
Too often, we attribute our ideological differences to bad intentions. In reality, for the most part we want the same things; we just differ on how we think they should be achieved. There is rarely one right answer when it comes to the bigger issues we face, and most disagreement is reasonable and important.
So, I want to reach across the aisle and show you where I’m coming from.
In this series, I have some questions for Democrats
On gun control.
Will further violence always justify further restriction, or is there a red line when it comes to gun control? In other words, what happens when common sense gun reform doesn’t work?
Gun control measures should pass on their own merits, not on the back of tragedy. There’s no problem with well-reasoned reform. The fear is that when inevitably these steps are not enough, we’ll begin to chip away at our Constitutional right. Let’s take Kamala Harris’s platform.
Universal background checks make sense. Commonly known as the ‘Gun Show Loophole’, private sellers do not have to conduct background checks when making sales. We should ensure that everyone purchasing a firearm is legally allowed to do so; almost 90% of the country agrees.[1]
But studies from UC Davis, UC Berkeley, and John Hopkins found that these laws have little to no effect on firearm homicide and suicide rates.[2]
There’s a case for an assault weapons ban. What constitutes an ‘assault weapon’ must be strictly defined; I would encourage those with little exposure to firearms to do some reading on the topic. But high velocity, high capacity weapons can increase the lethality of mass shootings.
Yet assault rifles make up less than 3% of gun homicides in the Unites States.[3] The deadliest school shooting in US history, Virginia Tech, was carried out with two handguns.[4]
Let’s take it a step further than Sen. Harris, and support a ‘permit to purchase’ program similar to Connecticut’s current policy. Mental health and gun violence have become intertwined, and requiring a shall-issue certificate of eligibility to qualified applicants passing both a background-check and a mental health records check before purchasing a firearm could be part of the solution. Research shows similar policies have had some success.[5]
But these proposed background-check improvements probably wouldn’t have prevented any of our recent mass shootings.[6]
These examples of ‘common-sense’ gun reform are solidly grounded and well-reasoned. They are a responsible reaction to the reality of modern-day gun violence, without infringing on one of the pillars of our Constitution.
These laws will make a difference, but not a huge difference.
Some firearms may have slightly more lethal qualities than others, but every weapon is lethal.
Handguns are used in the vast majority of gun-related homicides[7], but strict legislation of “handgun ownership would almost certainly run afoul of the Supreme Court’s ruling that ‘the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right’ and ‘the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.’”[8]
Of all the weapons used in conjunction with a crime, only 2% of were purchased from a retail source, including gun shows; the majority of the time they were stolen or bought on an underground market.[9]
In other words, the vast majority of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. Universal background checks have a very limited effect on already illegal gun purchases.
There is a clear gun violence problem, and we should universally embrace ‘common sense’ gun reform.
But why we pass laws is just as important as what we pass. We should embrace reform because its common sense; not as a reaction to heartbreak. Why?
Because inevitably, tragedy will strike again.
Once all of the ‘common sense’ reform has been passed, do we refocus our attention on the societal roots of gun violence, or will we begin to pursue more limiting constraints?
If the foundation of gun control philosophy is that tragedy always justifies restriction, even common-sense proposals will be viewed as a slippery slope towards an assault on the 2nd Amendment.
You push good, law abiding people away from supporting good ideas.
So, my question for Democrats is, when ‘common-sense’ gun reform doesn’t fix the problem, what happens next?
[1]https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29613872
[3] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
[5] http://www.taleoftwostates.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Connecticut-Study-Rudolph_AJPH201411682_Final.pdf
[6] https://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-shootings/index.html
[7] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
[8] https://reason.com/2013/01/23/why-licensing-gun-owners-is-unworkable-a/
