GUNS

This stuff scares the shit out of me.






This isn't exactly a political blog, but gun control is an issue I am feeling increasingly passionate about. I think a lot of it stems from my time spent in England, which has very strong gun laws. In my opinion, English gun control laws stem from a series of very logical responses to specific events. Check out this article from the BBC to see a history of gun laws in Britain.

In 1998, a man in Hungerford massacred 16 people with semi-automatic weapons. In response, the British government banned semi-automatic and pump action rifles, weapons which could fire explosive shells, short shotguns, and elevated rifles. Following a tragic massacre of 16 children in 1996 by a man with 4 legally owned handguns, the Government banned all calibers of handguns, including .22's. Within a year. Currently, it is a criminal offence to even possess an imitation gun, punishable by 12 months in prison.

So far in 2007, 49 people have been killed in the US in mass killing involving firearms. These victims are from a school shooting in Cleveland, the Virginia Tech massacre, and the two mall shootings in Salt Lake City and Omaha. That's as many firearms related deaths as in the whole of England and Wales in 2005-06. According to the BBC, that same year, the US had over 14,000 gun related murders. I consider this to be a problem, a problem that is unacceptable in contemporary society. Since the 1997 Columbine massacre, mass gun crimes have seemingly been on the rise. And as I stated earlier, that doesn't include any other gun related murders. Why is it that the US Government has not acted to prevent such horrors as Columbine, Red Lake, and Virginia Tech when it only took the British one tragedy to come to their senses? I find this to be incredibly perplexing and disturbing.

I own two guns, I must admit. I own a shotgun passed down to me from my grandfather, and a hunting rifle purchased when I was in boy scouts. Both are in my basement and secured with trigger locks. The keys are in a lock box. I haven't shot either of them for 6 years. It would be hypocritical of me to advocate a UK style ban on handguns at this point, and I'm not advocating that. Hunting definitely is a culture in the US, and the vast majority of hunters are safe and responsible with their firearms. But you don't need an AK-47 or a .50 caliber handgun to kill a deer.

Handguns and automatic weapons should be outright banned in the United States, with stricter controls on other firearms within urban areas. Why is this, one asks? The fact that a majority of firearms related murder victims are being killed by handguns. The fact that a ban on handguns in Britain has put firearms deaths in the double digits for the whole country. The fact that they are dangerous to civilian society and unnecessary. One could argue that they are necessary for self-protection, or as a deterrent. But if no one owned a handgun, why would it be necessary to own one in self-defense? Additionally, they are contributing to a very unsettling culture of violence in urban America.

One of the amazing things in the second video posted above is how Fred Thompson lays into Rudy Giuliani for the simple idea of requiring a written exam and a background check before purchasing a firearm. Call me crazy, but I find it ludicrous that every state in the Union doesn't have such safeguards. I find it even crazier that someone running for President would propose something as irresponsible as selling guns to whoever wants one. For firearms other than the kinds detailed above, I firmly believe that there should be a rigorous background check, written exam, and registration program in place, regardless of geographical location. It just makes sense. When we have devices that can just as easily kill people as animals, it is criminal negligence to not be positive that the wielders of such weapons are competent and responsible people who are using them for safe and legal means.

The Second Amendment apparently guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. Or is it the right of the well regulated militia to bear arms? I don't know the answer. But the Constitution also is set out to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Is there domestic tranquility when guns (a majority of them handguns, according to the U.S. Department of Justice) are killing over 14,000 Americans a year? Is it the general welfare to give out weapons without taking the necessary precautions and safeguards? And are we really receiving the blessings of liberty when out shopping at a mall, people are getting killed? No. Firearms related crime is curbing our liberty, our welfare, and our domestic tranquility. It's time for the government to ensure these guarantees by limiting the availability of firearms, especially handguns and automatic weapons. For a civilized nation, supposedly the greatest in the world, it's time to curb the barbarism of gun crime. People can bitch about having the right to carry firearms and all that jazz, but I have a right to stay alive too. I think pubic safety wins out.

I'm done, I just had to get this out.

In a final note, if you want to read some blatant bullshit on the merits or demerits of gun control, check out this brilliant Conservapedia article. Specifically read the fourth paragraph comparing Britain to the US. Ridiculous.