Once again, Americans are confronted with the dilemma of
relinquishing their claim to gun ownership and acting responsibly when it comes
to firearms control. The battle of gun
rights versus gun control always appears to be framed as a win/lose confrontation
and almost invariably causes proponents for either position to become
entrenched in their beliefs. This
unfortunate reality is that there is no need to turn the debate into one of
absolutes.
Most countries have enacted laws and regulations to control
the use of guns, and many to limit ownership of guns. Advocates of less regulation of firearms may
cite statistics that show that violent crime still exists in countries like
Canada and England, where gun laws are more restrictive than in the USA. However, while violence is prevalent in every
country, death by gunfire is less common in those countries that place
limitations on the use and sale of guns.
While the American right to bear arms has its origins in the British
Bill of Rights from the 1600s, England gradually ahs restricted that
right. Canada has vascillated between
greater freedom to won guns and greater restrictions.
In Great Britain, police still do not carry guns as a
routine practice, yet law enforcement works remarkably well. One of the reasons
may be that every criminal knows that he will not face the risk of being shot
while committing a crime. Certainly, the
victim of a crime may wish he had the ability to defend himself, but his life
is in less jeopardy, since the criminal does not begin in a life-and-death
defensive position. In the USA, the need
to defend property often is justification for deadly force. It is neither wrong or right in comparison to
Canada and the UK. It simply is a
different perspective. Property is
paramount in the USA, while safety and civil calm seems to be paramount in some
other jurisdictions.
However, the current vociferous debate on gun control is a
misplaced argument. It is true that
“guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
But it is also true that people without guns are far less likely to be
able to kill than those with guns, so guns become enablers in the hands of the
wrong people. A problem arises in
defining who the wrong people may be, and the right to bear arms is not
qualified in a rider that defines restrictions.
This is where reasonableness enters the picture.
A second issue in this debate involves authority. While the federal Congress contemplates gun
control laws, it is relatively powerless to require each state to enforce any
regulations that Congress passes, since the authority remains with individual
states. Thus, cooperative effort will be
required to not only devise appropriate laws, but to get all states to act upon
them. This will be an onerous task.
The prevailing opinion, both of the NRA and the anti-gun
lobbyists, appears to be that it would be reasonable to restrict access to guns
by those with a serious, relevant mental disability or incapacity. That is the basis, for example, in Canada’s
screening process for gun acquisition permits.
But, as shown in several gun violence incidents in recent years, keeping
the hands out of a mentally unstable person is an onerous task. Just because there is a mental problem does not
mean that the perpetrator of violence is incapable of creative actions to
acquire a gun, legally or otherwise.
The only choice that remains, then, is to make owners more
accountable for their firearms, while not restricting the right to own. Ownership also can be extrapolated to gun
manufacturing, which is not protected by the Second Amendment.
First, let us look at gun manufacturing. Currently, no citizen has the right to own
nuclear weapons, yet are they not arms?
Laws that protect against threats to the public reasonably disallow us
to manufacture or own such weapons of mass destruction. Those companies that manufacture armaments
are tightly regulated. However, the USA
has chosen not to limit, for the most part, the type of guns that can be constructed
and sold to the public. If firearms
manufacturers were barred from selling specific types of guns to the public
(and only to law enforcement), then part of the concern over assault weapons
would be eliminated. (However, since millions of assault rifles currently are
legally owned by citizens, this tactic would have minimal effect). Congress
could, however, be proactive by restricting the sale of new lines of weaponry
that have similar effect, and by limiting the types of ammunition used. So,
restricting gun manufacture will have limited impact.
The second, and most viable option for effective gun control
would be to work with the individual states to enact “responsibility” laws
regarding the handling of weaponry.
Under the “public peace” concept of common law, the federal government
would have more jurisdiction, particularly where interstate travel that
violates the legislation is involved.
Instead of limiting gun ownership more severely, make each
owner individually responsible for his or her guns. The concept of individual rights is an
integral component of the American psyche, and the logical extension of rights
is obligations.
One way of doing this would be to require that no gun be
transported loaded (without special permit, not special reason), and that every
gun, concealed or otherwise, be protected by an effective trigger-locking
mechanism that enables only the owner to access the lock. Ideally, a fingerprint activated lock, or a
unique, restricted keying system should be required. In the case, for instance, of the Newtown
killings, the son would not have been able to use his mother’s guns readily if
they had been protected in this manner. Those owners that violate the proposed
laws should be subject to automatic incarceration (not unlike many states’
drinking-and-driving laws) for a period of time, with very strenuous jail time
as the ultimate penalty.
Laws governing how we handle and store guns do not interfere
with our right to bear arms, and offer a reasonable compromise on access and availability. They still provide us with the ability to
protect ourselves from crime, but also protect us from our own knee-jerk
reactions that may cost us injury or death at the hands of someone committing a
crime against us. Other, less lethal
options like pepper spray and immobilizers already provide us with the ability
to create the delay between intent and action on the part of a criminal, and
allow us the ability to respond with gun use, if necessary. A fingerprint-activated lock, for instance,
would be able to open with a second or two when needed by the owner, but would
be unavailable to other users indefinitely.
It is time, not for compromise, but for reasonableness that
echews dogma and arbitrary positions on gun ownership. Making owners responsible and accountable is
reasonable and doable. Few should cry
out against such actions, and perhaps we can start on the journey to reducing
unnecessary violence and death at the hands of irresponsible and incapacitated
violent actors.
