Two Modest Recommendations for Gun Safety in America

After last week's horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the discussion around gun violence in America has once again been reinvigorated. While I have shared some thoughts on gun violence in a previous post, I focus this post on a more results-oriented approach as we find ourselves in the wake of yet another national tragedy. While President Obama rightly leaves the door open for a broad-based approach that includes more than traditional gun control and this tragedy again highlights the necessity of better mental health care in America, I will comment here only on the topic of gun safety.

First, a federal assault weapons ban must be re-implemented. The previous ban was put in place in the wake of the 1980s spate of gun violence, but expired in 2004, a year that had seen a decade of declining homocide rates. With the NRA on the rise and Republicans in charge of the Presidency and Congress, renewal did not have a chance. This coupled with the Supreme Court's controversial rewriting of the second amendment in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller was a huge victory for gun-rights advocates and criminals alike.

The main argument of gun enthusiasts and the NRA for the preservation of assault weapons in private possession is that assault weapons are necessary for self-defense. Their defense of this claim, however, is rather weak. The only advantages an assault weapon provides over a handgun is more ammunition, faster firing, and more range, all advantages that are traded for a dearth of portability and ability to conceal. No, assault weapons are not tools for defense, but are, as their name suggests, designed for assault. The case has been made for restrictions on assault weapons and high-capacity clips and congress should act on that case.

The second proposal I put forth has to do with local control. The constitution was devised at a time when the word "state" meant something more than "province." Each separate state saw themselves as a substantial political entity; the nation-state of "America" had not yet become established. Thus, the 10th Amendment was born: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

While we still live in a federal system in which states have a strong role, we also live in a country where local divisions are even more relevant culturally than state divisions. The Manhattanite likely has more in common with someone who lives in downtown Los Angeles than someone who lives on a farm in upstate New York, and that farmworker in upstate New York likely has more in common with a farmer in rural Wyoming than a Buffalo suburbanite.

While America was born as a country with fairly even population distribution, it has evolved into a country of densely populated metropolitan areas and sparsely populated rural areas, all with their own needs. These divisions, however, are not mirrored in our federal system. In City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the City of Cleveland could not restrict gun ownership past the dictates provided by the state.

Rural areas often need softer gun laws to accomodate for hunters (who have an important role of controlling animal populations) to own guns. Urban areas often need stricter gun laws as a way to curb gang-related violence. The current system of state control often leads to a state consolidating its power by picking a loser between the two.

So here is my second recommendation: leave non-assault weapon laws to local governments and regulate the transportation of weapons at higher levels of government. After all, that is the role of the commerce clause. Democracy works best when rights are guaranteed through federal and international means and all else is left to be locally decided upon, through a fair and democratic process. This may mean more power to municipalities to the detriment of state governments, but state governments have a vital regulatory role that cannot be dispensed of. But overall, the role of health, safety, and morals is best dealt with on a more intimate level than the state can provide.

Aurora Tragedy Once Again Exposes America's Love Affair With Guns

Last night's horrible tragedy in Aurora was perpetrated by a lone gunman with an unidentified motive. While more information will undoubtedly lead to more of an understanding of what led this man to do what he did, there is one thing that we do know at this point: if he did not have access to these weapons, this tragedy would not have happened.

Advocates of gun ownership have many strong points in the ongoing national discussion of the place of guns in our culture. In America's early days, gun ownership was near a necessity. Without a national army, local militias would band together to make up the army when war or other conflicts broke out. Thus, the bill of rights guarantees the people that "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."

Today, population density and the increased prevalence of the handgun has changed the dynamics of the country. Weapons are used less for hunting and self-defense than they are used for gang violence and crime. The conditions of our country have changed, but our laws have not changed with them.

The question before us is whether our gun policy in America does more harm than good. In rural areas, it makes sense to allow for rifle ownership. Allowing controlled hunting helps stem the tide of problems such as deer overpopulation in these areas, and rifles are not generally used for killing sprees or gang warfare in rural areas.

But when we look at the situation in America overall, there is little reason to say that citizens need handguns, shotguns, or automatic assault rifles. The question is this: can the government sufficiently enforce such a law without overstepping the bounds of liberty? This is an empirical question that needs research to bear out. In the United Kingdom, they have been able to do it, but the United States is admittedly a very different country demographically than the UK.

Past the empirical point, if we were able to establish that legislation with proper enforcement could lead to decreased gun-related murders, the question would be this: are we willing to curb the liberty of owning a gun so that people can have the liberty of life? In order to answer this question, it is useful to refer to philosopher John Rawls' distinction between liberty and the value of liberty as put forth in his book Political Liberalism.

A liberty is described as an ability to actually do something. The value of that liberty is how our situation allows us to take advantage of that liberty to live fulfilling lives. The mistake that many gun-rights advocates make is that they see liberty in black/white, yes/no terms. This is characterized by understanding the concept of liberty without understanding the concept of value of liberty. While allowing broad gun ownership almost undoubtedly contributes to the case of liberty in the strict sense, it creates a great threat to value of other core liberties.

And which liberties are threatened by gun ownership? In Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speech in his 1941 address to congress, Roosevelt lays out four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Defenders of guns find themselves enamored by the shiny seduction of the firearm, and we all feel it. But when Americans live in a country where they fear late night walks because of the threat of a weapon, when a young family in Denver needs to think twice about take their child to the theatre because of what happened a couple of weeks ago in a theatre downtown, that is when we have taken our obsession with want a little too far. Gun owners cling to guns as a protection, but our only way to become free from fear is to give up our want, and the only way for them to become free from their want is to give up their fear.