On Wednesday,
ABC News reported “a gun-control organization led by former Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords
and her husband…outlined plans Tuesday to support candidates in at
least 11 congressional races this year who have backed efforts in
Congress to enact stricter
gun control laws.”
There are topics that are a constant source of high-intensity angst
no matter what is going on in the world. It takes something as
catastrophic as 9/11 to distract us from almost daily arguments about
abortion, taxes and of course
guns.
Since the Colorado theater and Sandy Hook shootings in 2012
the debate about guns has been more intense than ever, with those
favoring more gun control highlighting every gun crime that can make it
onto a meme and the guns rights advocates parading a host of staunch
supporters who almost dare anyone to attempt to take their weapons.
To be certain, gun advocates have their share of caustic orators, the
most recent of which appears to be Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher aka Joe
the Plumber, who made a number of very important and salient points
about the right to own and use firearms but unfortunately started his
piece with “your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”
While it’s true that they don’t, such an insensitive and
poorly-worded comment isn’t likely to open up any hearts and minds to
consider the rest of what you have to say, Joe.
And unfortunately Joe isn’t alone. From videos made of guys feeling the need to mock gun control advocates by carrying rifles around while shopping to the Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, the country’s most prominent pro-gun advocacy group, who manages to make statements that are blatantly false half the time
he opens his mouth, it's apparent that gun rights advocates sometimes
shoot first and ask questions later...figuratively speaking.
Their opponents typically say this is part and parcel of anything the
right supports, and yet, a little intellectual curiosity is in order
when examining issues where we are so deeply divided with each side
sometimes unwavering. Is there a reason gun advocates sometimes go a
little too far or use extreme rhetoric in defending what they perceive
to be their rights?
The 2nd Amendment does indeed state “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” and anti-gun advocates argue
that there was never any intent to bear arms other than for such a
militia. However, in
D.C. vs. Heller,
the Supreme Court attempted to put the right to bear arms in a
modern-day perspective. Aware that the Founders could not have
envisioned the power of weapons we have today, they ruled “Like most
rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right
to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose." However, they also affirmed “the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with
service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful
purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "
But for anti-gun advocates to be so active in their strong desire for
more gun control, surely there must be a compelling reason, and they
would argue what seems to be a reasonable point. Between 1980 and 2006,
an average of 32,300 people lost their lives annually due to gun
violence, predominantly homicide or suicide, and compared to other
industrialized countries, violence and firearm death rates in the United
States are disproportionately high. These facts and the lives lost
shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Of course there is a great deal of disagreement about how to address
it. The left seems to be concerned about these deaths and as a result,
has consistently pushed for greater gun control. While more thorough
background checks certainly seem to be a no-brainer and in some cases
Republicans have opposed them, there seems to be little acknowledgement
that any laws attempting to infringe on the legal use of guns are not
only often unconstitutional, but they also aren’t likely to be
effective. Criminals, after all, do not obey the laws to begin with so
they are not going to be affected by more laws that infringe of the
rights of law-abiding citizens and in fact, such laws can potentially
give criminals a competitive advantage. Meanwhile there are other areas
that need to be addressed such as our inadequate mental health
treatment system, harsher penalties for gun crimes and addressing the
illegal gun trade that would have a greater effect on reducing gun crime
without infringing on constitutional rights.
What is more puzzling, however, is the amount of attention paid to an
issue that seems very serious in and of itself but in fact, pales in
comparison to other toxic activities we engage in. Cigarette smoking,
for example, is the major cause of a whopping 480,000 deaths per year in the U.S.
nearly sixteen times the number of gun-related deaths. Even if you
add in non-fatal gun injuries the total is nearly five times as high.
