Gun control debate

http://www.policymic.com/articles/72067/gun-control-debate-the-argument-that-every-gun-owner-needs-to-start-making

This is from the pro-gun side of the debate, written by James Banks (whose article history show him to be far from a rabid conservative, having written articles about sympathy for prison rape victims and more economic protection for the poor). His argument corresponds to one raised in the lecture: ultimately, he thinks the occasional massacre is a price that must be paid for freedom, and "sometimes living in a free society means living with the people who abuse their freedoms." He argues that the right to bear arms should not be restricted because it would "make society safer" (which he does not believe would exactly happen anyway), as that is not a goal mentioned by the amendment in the first place. "Alcohol does not make society safer (and Prohibition saved lives)", he says as comparison, "but we assume that it should be legal and have a constitutional amendment to defend ownership of it as well." At heart, his argument is that personal freedoms are more important than personal safety and that Americans have to tolerate abuses of this freedom if they want to remain a truly free country.

I have my sympathies with this view. I would also liken guns to alcohol - Prohibition may have saved lives, but in the end it was a failure, and I believe it would be similarly difficult to implement gun control laws. I also believe, philosophically, that there is nothing inherently wrong with responsible, background-checked adults owning firearms for self-defense or recreation. In the end though I would place personal safety and the stability of society over personal freedom to own firearms.

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

This, meanwhile, is by Jason Asahi who writes for a university newspaper and is widely traveled. He goes in-depth in his arguments for gun control. He argues that the freedoms provided by the original amendments can be infringed (the right to free speech, for example, does not give the right to stand up at a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" without justifiable cause as it may result in injury), so pro-gun advocates should not hide behind the second amendment as it is not an impenetrable wall. He also cites the disagreements between gun advocates on the matter of how much the amendment's reach should be restricted, as few believe anyone has the right to own a nuclear weapon - surely this means they believe in restricting the amendment anyway? He also brings up statistics from several studies, including that a gun in the household is 43 times more likely to kill a member of that household or friend than a malicious intruder, and also that 340,000 firearms are stolen every year which probably contributes to the criminal shootings. He says "I would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible", a rather radically liberal view in America.

Philosophically I do not ultimately agree with him, either. America is a nation founded on the idea of personal liberty to do many things, and responsible ownership and use of a firearm seems entirely fair to me in a society which upholds such ideals. Practically, however, his use of peer-reviewed studies as sources for his opinions lend him a lot of credibility and I agree with his belief that the second amendment is not absolute.

My stance on gun control is that guns should be legal for Americans to purchase, but background checks must be mandatory in every state in order to prevent known criminals or the mentally ill from obtaining them. Gun safety courses should also be mandatory if one wishes to purchase a gun, and the handling of guns by minors should be illegal if it is not already. As such I agree most with Asahi, who proposes both of these things as his practical solution.