Gunned Down: A Discussion on Gun Regulation

          Since the Newtown, Connecticut Sandy Hook elementary school massacre a conversation has been reignited on guns and gun regulation in the United States. I was recently asked what I thought about this second amendment business and the tone of the conversation.

So let's be clear....

1. I believe the constitution of the United States gives its citizens the right to bear arms. Now what these arms are is the subject of debate. Are nuclear weapons on the table? Are assault rifles on the table? 

2.I think most people would agree that we need some regulation on who has access to guns. However, this conversation has become riddled with the personal fears of MANY people and the corporate interests of a FEW people. 

3. I believe a large segment of the population believe the government is after their weapons. I believe organizations such as the NRA have a larger agenda which ultimately isn't the interest of the American people, but the interests of the people who donate large sums to their organization. Many of whom make profit off of guns and gun sales. 

With that said there are certain things that deserve consideration when it comes to the topic of regulation. According to criminology professor James Allen Fox there are myths concerning gun regulation and mass shootings

here are a few:

Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.
Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.

Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.

Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.

Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.

It would seem that stricter regulation would curtail a number of gun crimes, but it's affect on mass murders such as this would be minuscule. However, any progress is progress is it not?

To the proponents of more regulation

I think the conversation needs to be moved towards smart regulation. People are complaining about  ak-47 and ar-15 rifles yet deaths by high powered rifles are minuscule in the US. When we talk about assault rifles ( a class 3 weapon) there's much stricter regulation than other weapons under the "assault weapons" category. 

The real conversation needs to be moved towards handguns, and semi automatic weapons. Though i personally don't see myself owning an assault rifle it's not the real culprit here. The result  in my opinion is the familiar cry that government is coming to take our weapons. And when you start targeting weapons which are menacing, but aren't a significant factor in violent deaths I can understand the frustration. 

To the proponents of less regulation

I agree with the conclusion that regulation, mental health care, etc etc wont STOP the problem, but it WILL take a nibble out of it. Which in and of itself is important. No, Obama isn't trying to ban the Second Amendment, but he is proposing stricter gun regulation ( i agree it should be smart regulation). I disagree with the conclusion more guns in the hands of people means less shootings via they can protect themselves. This assumes the people carrying the weapons are responsible and secondly that they're carrying their guns with them 24/7. Which of course is impossible. It also assumes there is a criminal element out to get these gun owners and I'm suspicious of who the criminals are in these circumstances. We've heard of numerous accounts of minorities being gunned down because they were in the wrong neighborhood, acted suspiciously etc 

Conclusion 

The overall problem is the gun culture we have in America. Which is the leading country of gun related deaths among industrialized nations. The conversation that was sparked by the shooting in CT is good for America. Me personally? I don't think the answer is more guns and I don't believe in trampling on people's constitutional right. However, I think we ALL can agree that we need to find a way to keep dangerous weapons out the hands of dangerous people.