My day started with a bagel, large coffee, and a copy of today's Collegian at the Business building. I flipped through the Collegian as usual, but stopped abruptly when I came upon
today's editorial entitled
Second Amendment: Gun owner database necessary for safety. Take a moment to read through it. Needless to say, I was immediately driven to formulate a response, which ended up turning into a two and a half page piece. The following is the full text of my response.
Dear Board of Opinion,
I am deeply saddened and disappointed by today’s editorial,
Second Amendment: Gun owner database necessary for safety. That said, I will add that it is the kind of writing I have come to expect from Collegian writers. While I’m sure you would claim to a creditable news publication, yet you allow the publication of such an unsubstantiated article. I do understand that the article was published as an “opinion” piece, the article quickly turned into one where the writer(s) assert their opinion as undisputable fact. This would have been well and good, except for the 100 percent lack of facts or evidence to back up said “opinion”. This, too, I expected upon seeing the heading of the editorial, as most people who take such a position on the issue of gun control rarely—if ever—have any evidence to back up their claims.
As a gun owner and gun rights advocate, I am constantly forced to engage in debate over the issue of gun control. I say ‘forced’ because as a staunch supporter of this country and the freedoms it gives me, I cannot stand idly by while people attack my rights through unsubstantiated claims based almost wholly on an emotional reactionary response. Today’s editorial is just another one of those responses. I sincerely hope that all those writers who contributed to today’s editorial will take a moment to read through this response just as I read through theirs.
Many people like to dispute the matter of ‘rights’ when it comes to gun control. Today’s editorial states, “[the] databases do not violate any citizens' rights. Most gun owners are responsible buyers, and any person who purchases any gun understands that records are kept of their purchase. It is an inherent risk when buying a firearm.” I wonder; did any of this editorial’s contributors take a moment to explore this claim? Not only does our Federal Constitution clearly state our “right” to keep and bear arms, but also the Pennsylvania State Constitution takes an even stronger position on our rights: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned” (PA Constitution, Section 21). The key words there are “shall not be questioned”. Don’t get me wrong here; I clearly see the need for the various background and character investigations that come with the legal purchase of a firearm, but that is where it should end. As my interpretation of our Constitutions—both Federal and State—goes, the databases in question are a clear violation of our
right to keep and bear firearms
without question. There should be no “inherent risk” when purchasing a firearm.
The theory behind the deployment of these firearm databases is, admittedly, pretty sound. If there is an easily-accessible list of all the firearms and their owners, every gun-related crime should be easily and quickly solved, right? Sadly, this theory seems to avoid one clear and blatant fact:
criminals are criminals because they don’t obey the law. It has been shown over and over again that a large majority of criminals responsible for gun-related crimes acquired their weapons through illegal means. In a segment on ABC’s 20/20, John Stossel discusses the myth (and it is a myth) that strict gun control reduces violent crime. In the segment (video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg), John goes to a prison and interviews inmates about guns and gun laws. He asks them why the laws weren’t working. One inmate responds, “I'm not going in the store to buy no gun.” Another inmate adds, “There's guns everywhere, if you got money, you can get a gun.” John goes on to add, “A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily.” So how, then, would a firearms database do anything to help solve crime when a majority of the guns used in those crimes weren’t purchased legally in the first place? That’s right. The firearms database is completely useless in the majority of cases involving violent gun crime.
Today’s editorial takes the position (as most anti-gun people do) that more firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens (such as domestic abuse victims) would only lead to more violence. This is perhaps the most glaring unsubstantiated claim made in today’s editorial: “…more lenient gun laws would not have helped the [domestic abuse] situation and will not aid other cases of domestic dispute. Permitting more people to obtain guns will only further the violence, not end it.” This quotation is also perhaps the most glaring example of where an “opinion” is asserted as clear, undisputable fact. It seems that the writers of today’s editorial have the gift of foresight, as that quotation seems to try to tell the readers what will or will not occur in the future. I wonder if any of the contributors to today’s editorial thought to do a little research to try to back up their claims? It’s quite obvious to me that no research was done, because if anyone had done any, they would quickly find that nearly all of the research and studies done on effects of gun ownership come to the opposite conclusion. From the aforementioned John Stossel piece: “The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.” Have you heard of the handgun ban in the U.K.? That must be the safest country in the world, right? Dead wrong. From another one of John Stossel’s articles, “But [the strict gun-control laws] didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.” (link: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1) So what about here in the states? Well, an academic study done in 1999 by John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes looked at public, multiple-victim shootings between 1977 and 1995. While I could summarize their finding for you, the following selection from their Abstract says it best: “Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.” (link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637) You read it correctly. More guns (or even just the possibility of more guns) in the hands of law-abiding citizens is the most effective method of preventing shootings like VA-Tech or the editorial’s story of domestic abuse.
I hope at least on some level that I’ve succeeded in my goal of presenting a well-constructed and sufficiently substantiated argument against today’s purely emotional and reactionary response. I sincerely hope that the next time Collegian writers choose to take such a feeble position on a very controversial issue, they at least make an attempt to present some evidence to show why they have taken such a position. “…it’s a matter of common sense,” today’s editorial states. Perhaps it’s just me, but “common sense” tells me to do a little investigation before I go spewing controversial claims and asserting them as truth. Common sense also tells me that the only thing “irresponsible” here is the inevitable push to punish law-abiding citizens (people like myself) every time there is an incident like VA-Tech. I would like to expect better things from the news publication representing my University, but articles like today’s editorial makes it hard to take your publication seriously.
Labels: gun control
