Common-sense approach to gun control necessary

As 2012 came to a close, much of America renewed the fight for stricter gun control — largely in response to the seemingly high number of mass shootings this year, the most recent being the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Conn.

On one side of the argument, gun control advocates are looking to eliminate guns as a way of ending these mass shootings. In contrast, advocates of the right to bear arms feel their Second Amendment rights are being threatened by any further restrictions.

Both of these extreme arguments, however, block citizens and lawmakers from exercising sensible judgement in this case. Gun control needs to be looked at not as a saving grace to lower crime rates or as an awful threat to citizens’ rights, but as a common-sense-type solution to make our society safer as times continue to change.

As the country continues to advance technologically, laws must advance accordingly. Society today bears little resemblance to the America in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The Second Amendment grants citizens the right to keep and bear arms in the context of well-regulated militias. This may have been relevant in the 18th century, but in the 21st century, militias are only found in history textbooks.

Similarly, though firearms may have been key to safe living more than two centuries ago, there are very few times when guns are successfully used for self-defense nowadays.
For example, as cited by U.S. News and World Report, an armed deputy was at Columbine High School when the 1999 shooting took place. Similarly, Virginia Tech, the location of the nation’s most deadly shooting in 2007, had its own police department. Yet again, a 2009 shooting killing 13 people and injuring 29 took place at Fort Hood military base.

The purpose of possessing so-called “assault weapons,” namely, semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, today is virtually non-existent for civilians. (Semi-automatic firearms are distinguished by their ability to prepare the weapon to fire again after already firing, i.e. extract and eject the cartridge and load a new round into the chamber.)

The potential for accident and  crime by possessing a semi-automatic weapon far outweighs the possibility of self-defense. A ban on certain semi-automatic weapons similar to the one passed by former President Bill Clinton in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 would promote a safe society while still allowing citizens to exercise their rights.

For their part, hunters would not be largely affected by a ban on certain semi-automatics. Smaller, non-automatic guns used for hunting could continue to be used by licensed hunters in sanctioned environments as they currently are.

Making the purchase of semi-automatic weapons more difficult would also help promote safety. Although it varies by state, virtually the only consistent requirement for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons is a simple background check to prove that the buyer is not a convicted felon.

At the very minimum, adding additional steps to the purchasing process, such requiring the buyer to take a basic safety course and provide more personal information upon purchase, would help ensure that these weapons do not end up in unreliable hands.

As the gun control debate rages in the upcoming months, a moderate approach to controlling firearms would help promote the safety that the founders of this country had in mind when they enacted the Second Amendment.