Having gone to one of the March For Our Lives events, I realized that the gun control debate has revolved around what determines our need for gun laws. The NRA, for the most part, holds to the position that better enforcement of current gun laws provide a sufficient against mass shootings. Thus, according to some defenders of the NRA, if the current laws were well enforced in Florida, then the slaughter at Margery Stoneman Douglas High School would have never taken place. Having reviewed the some of the information available, I would say that the jury is still out on that. And that even if that was true in that instance, what happens when enforcement fails?
The next issue debated revolves around the definition of an assault rifle. The rifle used in the Parkland shooting as well as some other shootings was the AR-15. Is that an assault rifle? Here we should note how the AR-15 itself compared very favorably to the old, 1950s and 1960s, military M14 rifle to the extent that smaller units armed with AR-15s were rated as having more firepower than larger units armed with M14s. The high-velocity rounds, damage inflicted a single round, the negligible recoil, the increased number of rounds soldiers could carry, and its light weight made the AR-15 superior to the M14. That favorable comparison and that the AR-15 was designed to be a military rifle should provide sufficient grounds for calling it an assault weapon. In addition, the AR-15 is easily modified to convert the weapon from a semi-automatic one to a fully automatic one.
The manifesto provided by Margery Stoneman Douglas high school students appears to contain a robustness that the NRA position lacks (click here and there). There are two points from the manifesto that should be noted here. Both assault weapons that fire high-velocity rounds and alterations made to semi-automatic weapons, including bump stocks and large magazines, that increase the fire power of semi-automatic weapons would be banned. Thus, when enforcing existing gun laws or performing background checks fail, the manifesto provides a robustness in efforts to control the kind of weapons that are legally accessible. The idea of firmer gun control laws is to reduce, not eliminate, the number of mass shootings as well as damage done by such shootings.
The NRA position is that gun laws are adequate to accomplish those tasks. But the statistics tell a different story. There were around 42 mass shootings during the 1990s, around 20 during the 2000s, and around 34 and counting for the 2010s. The point, again, is that banning certain weapons, such as what is called for in the Parkland students' manifesto provides another check for when enforcement of current laws fails for whatever reason. According to the manifesto itself, mere possession of certain weapons would be a criminal offense and thus make confiscation of such weapons easier for law enforcement officials.
Weapons like the AR-15 are becoming a preferable weapon of choice in mass shootings because of some of the advantages listed above. Personally, I prefer the Australian ban on assault weapons to students' manifesto but what the students are saying should be taken very seriously for it is well thought out. The arguments for owning semi-automatic weapons for self-defense are rather weak. Most local crimes involving guns are not committed with semi-automatic weapons. In addition, just the possession of a gun can sometimes act as a deterrent for those committing a crime on the street or in someone's home. But here we also should note that possession of guns also poses a theft problem. Many guns are stolen and thus reducing the number of legally owned semi-automatic weapons would reduce the theft of such weapons. And since the ban on semi-automatic weapons is primarily used to reduce mass shootings, the NRA claim for the need to own semi-automatic weapons would imply the open carrying of such weapons by civilians in public. But such an open carry could cause other problems with gun violence.
There is another issue that emerges from the March For Our Lives events. That issue revolves around what gets the attention of our elected officials. The NRA uses money to help control and limit what guns laws are passed. And it seems that the NRA's agenda is to make sure the sale of guns is not infringed on by the laws passed. What the high school kids from Florida have done with their movement is to show that, with enough public support, people's voices can act as a mute button on money and favors for many politicians. At least, that is the current hope for the current gun control debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment