warning Hi, we've moved to USCANNENBERGMEDIA.COM. Visit us there!

Neon Tommy - Annenberg digital news

Guns: What Can We Do About Them?

Marcin Bauer |
October 30, 2012 | 12:31 a.m. PDT

Contributor

Gun control is a highly contested issue in the U.S. (Jim Bumgardner, Creative Commons)
Gun control is a highly contested issue in the U.S. (Jim Bumgardner, Creative Commons)
Gun control is, without a doubt, one of the most fiercely debated issues in our highly partisan nation.

This year alone, the United States experienced seven mass shootings, not counting smaller rampages like last week’s shooting in Ingelwood, in which Desmond Moses shot a family of five, killed a four-year-old and his 33-year-old father, and wounded his wife and their other two children. One day later, Radcliffe Haughton stormed into a Wisconsin day spa and shot seven people, three fatally. Haughton’s shooting spree was the second mass shooting to occur in Wisconsin this year.

Out of 12,996 murders in the U.S during 2010, 8,775 were caused by firearms. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 97,820 people are shot every year in America, 268 daily, with over 31,593 gun related deaths in 2011 alone.

Gun related violence is a serious issue in the United States, one that requires action. That much is obvious. But how should we deal with this issue?

One problem that arises in this discussion is that guns are undeniably a major part of America’s culture and its history. Our colonial ancestors realized the importance of being able to defend themselves; thus, it should come as no surprise that the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment. It 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.” From that point on, guns played a key role in our history. As the idea of Manifest Destiny propelled our ancestors toward the west, guns went along with them, for good reason - it seems that guns were necessary for survival in the dangerous Wild West.

However, it is often argued that we are no longer an untamed nation, nor do we face the risk of having to defend ourselves from invaders. Although it is true that the final frontier has been tamed and the British have become our allies rather than our adversaries, modern times bring with them modern dangers.

On January 4, a young mother in Oklahoma, Sarah McKinley, fatally shot a man who had broken into her home, armed with a “12 inch hunting knife,” in order to protect herself and her infant son. Sarah’s husband had died on Christmas Day, and without the shotgun, Sarah felt defenseless. Most states, including Oklahoma and California, allow for the deadly use of force to defend yourself inside your own home. There is no doubt that the lives of Sarah and her infant son were in jeopardy, and that she acted legally and rationally.

There are clearly legitimate life-threatening instances in which firearms are rightfully used for self-defense. However, shooting has also become a hobby and form of recreation. Guns are used for hunting, competitions and even investments. Many guns are considered pieces of art and have become collectibles. Guns are, for some people, a way of life. There is certainly nothing wrong with using guns in controlled situations, such as hunting, or while competing. The question at hand is who can use guns, what type of guns are available, and how easily firearms and other weapons can be obtained, rather than what the guns are actually used for.

While firearms regulations vary from state to state, those that are in place are fairly weak. For example, California has a 10-day waiting period, does not put a limit on the amount of firearms owned (except that only one firearm may be purchased per month) and requires only a safety certificate. Although guns must be registered, and the law does prevent felons and people with mental illness from possessing firearms, in California, it is considered fairly easy to obtain a firearm.

Different states have different gun laws. In Colorado, the site of this past July’s horrific mass shooting in Aurora and the Columbine school shooting in 1999, regulations are even more lax. In July, the New York Times reported that in Colorado, “carrying a concealed weapon requires a permit, but Colorado is among those states whose rules on permits are relatively lax” and that “Colorado is one of 38 ‘shall issue’ states” which means that “if a person complies with all of the requirements, then the state must issue a concealed weapons permit.”

In 2008 and 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that “the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws.” However, the Supreme Court left it up to the lower courts to decide “whether those exceptionally strict laws, which effectively banned the possession of handguns” violate the Second Amendment. Essentially, the justices asserted that local and regional governments cannot restrict gun ownership, but they left the decision of whether local gun control laws violate the Second Amendment up to lower level judges. In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court asserted little more than that handguns can legally be used for self-defense in private homes.

Guns are easily obtained in the U.S. (Frazljn, Creative Commons)
Guns are easily obtained in the U.S. (Frazljn, Creative Commons)
The true issue here is that in spite of attempts, albeit weak attempts, to regulate guns, it is incredibly easy for people to purchase and distribute illegal firearms.

Online, a person has only to use a free program called TOR that "routes and reroutes your connection to the internet through a maze of encrypted nodes around the world,” making it extremely difficult to identify buyers. From that point on, anyone can access a certain website that illegally and anonymously sells and distributes illegal firearms through the internet, such as AK47’s, M4’s and other military firearms.

In addition, these websites sell high-grade body armor and military ammunition, and thus pose a significant risk to public safety. There is literally very little stopping someone from purchasing these firearms and heading out on a rampage.

However, firearms used in mass shootings are usually legal. This is true of the Aurora cinema shooting. The New York Times commented:

“James Holmes, 24…armed himself with an assault rifle, a shotgun and a handgun to allegedly kill 12 and wound 59 others, many critically. All were weapons that would probably be legal for him to possess.”

Unsurprisingly, due to the political complications arising from discussions of firearms, both of our current presidential candidates have ignored the issue of gun control. In fact, “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, [gave] Obama an "F" for his gun record.” Far from providing a superior stance, Mitt Romney has been known for flip-flopping his position on gun control throughout the entire campaign. With interest groups like the NRA spearheading “$40 million advertising campaigns” against President Obama for his alleged desire to eliminate gun ownership, when in reality Obama's administration has done no such thing, it is not surprising that politicians in both parties chose to sweep aside gun reforms as a campaign issue.

There is a large continget of people throughout the nation who believe that firearms should be completely banned, a belief I share. Mass shootings, gun-related murders and accidental deaths cannot be prevented without the total elimination of firearms. In contrast to the U.S., Japan forbids firearms ownership with only a few exceptions, and even then a person must take an all-day class held once a month and pass a written test, extensive background checks, a drug test and a tough mental exam. Once someone receives a gun, they must store the firearm and ammunition separately, and notify the local police where each is stored. They must then allow the police to check the firearm once a year and retake the class and exam every three years.

As a result, there were only two gun-related homicides in Japan in 2006, 11 in 2007 (which became a large scandal) and two in 2008. In comparison, “In 2008, the U.S. had over twelve thousand firearm-related homicides.” Overall, Japan had 1,097 murders [seven gun related] in 2009, out of a population of 127 million. From 2004-2006, America saw 10.27 gun-related deaths for every 100,000 people, a rate among the highest in the world. The U.S. had 13,636 murders out of a population of 307 million, and 71.8 percent of the murders involved firearms.

Realistically, however, the elimination of firearms in the United States would be an immense challenge, if not impossible to accomplish. ABC reports that there are “are almost 300 million privately-owned firearms" in the United States. If, in the nearly impossible chance that a law banning firearms were passed, the constitutionality of the federal government seizing private firearms and essentially telling citizens what they may or may not own, would surely be challenged in the Supreme Court. Not to mention the intense public uproar that would occur. Additionally, let’s not forget that there are legitimate instances in which using a gun is necessary to defend oneself.

Consequently, if firearms are not to be eliminated, then regulations must simply be improved. Firearms should become harder to obtain by forcing applicants to take and pass tougher background checks, annual drug tests and mental exams in order to receive a license. Additionally, gun owners should be required to take gun safety courses, as in Japan. Furthermore, firearm owners should be required to inform the police of the type and quantity of firearms owned, and gun dealers should be required to log sales of guns, ammunition and accessories. National authorities like the FBI should be given more resources to crack down on the sale of illegal firearms, in order to prevent anyone from receiving military grade weaponry by simply ordering it anonymously online.

Police officers were called to the home of Wisconsin shooter Radcliffe Haughton about 20 times throughout the past decade. In one instance, “[police] officers thought they saw Radcliffe Haughton with a rifle and set up a perimeter around the house.” A UCLA professor stated that “there’s no indication that, from his record, he is someone whom more restrictive screening procedures would have caught.” In order to counteract this problem, laws should include provisions that allow police officers to temporarily confiscate firearms if multiple instances of alleged crimes or disturbances are reported. At the very least, tougher screening methods would eliminate some potential persons who would post a safety risk to the public if they were to own a gun.

Guns should be banned from certain public spaces like malls, college campuses and areas directly surrounding schools. While some may argue that guns can be used to fight back during an attack, no one shot back at James Holmes in Aurora, no one shot back at Radcliffe Haughton in Wisconsin, nor at Jared Lee Loughner during the Tuscon shooting of Gabrielle Giffords that killed six and injured 19. There is no better way to protect citizens, especially students on college campuses, than to ban the ownership, carrying and transporting of firearms on college campuses. Implementing the previously suggested laws to purchase a firearm might have made it difficult for Seung-Hui Cho to shoot 49 people, 32 fatally, on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007.

The political and social reality of our nation is that gun control laws remain weak due to the unpopularity of the idea of gun regulation. Despite their good intentions, organizations like the NRA continue to make unfounded accusations, scaring their followers into believing that gun control leads directly to the government barging into their homes and seizing all of their beloved firearms, thus giving the governmet precedent to take whatever else they please. That will simply not happen. The LA Times remarked that even after the Aurora movie theater shootings, “47% [of Americans said] it’s more important to control gun ownership and 46% [put] a higher priority on guarding the right of Americans to own them.” With the country essentially split 50/50 on this problem, gun control will remain controversial, and thus be deemed “untouchable” by our elected leaders.

Nothing will change until a majority of citizens admit to themselves that because gun control in the United States is extremely lax, all Americans' safety is at risk. Only then will we see actual change occur. Realistically, guns will not be banned entirely; but, at the very least, there should be more procedures put in place to discourage murderers (mass murderers or otherwise) from obtaining or distributing firearms.

 

Reach Contributor Marcin Bauer here.



 

Buzz

Craig Gillespie directed this true story about "the most daring rescue mission in the history of the U.S. Coast Guard.”

Watch USC Annenberg Media's live State of the Union recap and analysis here.