Sensible Weapons Regulations: A Longstanding Tradition

When talking about gun violence, gun enthusiasts often act like any regulations on firearms would be some kind of radical, unprecedented break with our fundamental rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Lions, tigers and bears, oh my!

However, this is not true at all.

I always remind these folks that the vast majority of weapons are off limits to the public and only the military has access to them. We have a longstanding tradition of banning weapons from public use and always have. Loaded tanks, missiles, grenades, machine guns... the list goes on and on. It's NOT a radical break in the 2nd amendment to suggest that assault-style guns and rifles should be included in the list "for military access only." 

There are thousands and thousands of weapons restricted from civilian use. Further, these regulations are very effective at keeping them out of public access.  Adding a couple more (like the AR-15 and its class of weapons) would only move the needle slightly but studies indicate it would have a significant impact on public health. There are some weapons so heinous even the military won't use them, but it is still the only group authorized to research them or keep them in any way. Sure, you can buy some stripped-down, neutralized versions at a surplus store, but that's not the same, of course.

Just for the record, I don't know which weapons are included on which list or which ones specifically need to be banned, so before you respond with "But what about the XYZ semiautomatic which falls in between categories??" that misses the point: CLEARLY the line between civilian and military weapons needs to be re-evaluated significantly in light of new technologies and in light of public risk. If someone is willing to shoot up a shopping mall and doesn't seem to mind getting killed in the process or spending the rest of their lives in prison, you simply don't give them easy access to firearms, especially those of mass destruction. Arguing semantics about gun categories is fine when it comes time for an official committee to set proper parameters, but we in the general public do not need that to make an informed decision NOW.

It's the same rationale why bombs, nukes and related items are severely restricted from civilian use. If your neighbor wants to blow up a city with a nuke, whether or not you retaliate with a nuke of your own is not going to matter a whole lot. Prevention works better than cure here. Something clearly has to be done in our culture and arming more people won't fix this.

The same reason we don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons capabilities is the same reason I don't want my neighbor to have access to an AR-15.

Look at the recent Dayton shooting: I believe the gunman was shot by security within seconds of opening fire. It's hard to imagine a better response time. Nevertheless, it didn't stop the shooting, it didn't stop the deaths, and it didn't seem to deter the killer in any way. Many were dead in that short time. We can't arm our way out of this. A whole room full of people fully armed will not stop a mass shooting. The shooter can fire off an AR-15 and kill several before anyone could respond.

The US military confirms this:  In their words, you can't defend an infinite number of targets. You can successfully defend specific individual people or buildings. For example, you can guard a building, like the Capitol or a museum. You can have protection around a president and defend him effectively—well, sometimes this doesn't work, as Ronald Reagan was shot despite being surrounded by Secret Service guards. So even this is debatable, but in theory it can be done. But when the potential targets are literally anybody, anywhere, anytime, you have to address this on the supply side of prevention, not cure. It's the same problem the military had with suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arming the population or having more checkpoints isn't going to stop it. It has to be addressed further back in the supply chain of access to materials, in addressing systemic injustices and root causes of violence. It won't be successfully addressed by having more security, by more people employing "open carry" or by arming teachers.

You might say: "They'll use knives! They'll make their own homemade bombs!" However, as tragic as that might be, in both instances, the scale would be substantially smaller and the startup effort required would be significantly higher, which would reduce bloodshed exponentially and perhaps even prevent some tragedies from happening at all. Of course we have to look at root causes of violence and seriously revamp our society on may levels, and I would be thrilled to have that conversation. I would love to do everything to create a society based in peace and nonviolent conflict resolution which builds up its members. Let's do it! I wonder if gun enthusiasts really know what they are asking for when they talk about addressing root causes of violence outside of guns! Peace and love is the way!

But in the meantime—and for all times—we don't give easy access to weapons of mass destruction to people who want to commit mass destruction on the public! Simple. It's the guns. If you look at the example of how we limit weapons to the military only, we are not even following our own logic and policies here. We've always limited them. We've always had regulations. Adding a couple extra models of weapons to the list of thousands and thousands and thousands which are off limits to civilians is not a radical departure from what we've always done. The only radical departure is that our regulations have not kept pace with the increasing technology of weapons.

Adding a couple extra models to the list of thousands and thousands and thousands of weapons which are off limits to civilians is not a radical departure from what we've always done.

We have to remember that both the Constitution (5th and 7th amendments of the Bill of Rights) and the Declaration of Independence guarantees the rights to life, liberty and property IN THAT ORDER (rendered slightly differently as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence). We forget that last part: In that order. It may not be written in the text but it has always been understood and interpreted that way. There are reasonable limits to all of the rights enshrined in our founding documents as a result. When one person's pursuit of happiness interferes with other person's life, we choose life. Period. When we live together in an ordered society, one person's behavior can and will impact another person, and this is why we have a hierarchy of rights and liberties to assure the best for all. This is especially true when the liberty of carrying a gun is NOT associated with any increased safety for the gun owner or anyone else—in fact, it is only correlated with increased risk to life, liberty and happiness. 

When someone walks into a Starbucks with an AR-15, my pursuit of happiness is over, my liberty to spend time there is effectively limited, and I'm worried about my life. I'm planning my exit immediately and so is everyone else. I don't know what the person's intentions are or what their training has been. Besides, accidents happen even with trained people. Even armed security could not stop a person from shooting up a crowd with an AR-15. That is why even just brandishing the weapon—and not using it—is already an act of aggression—even unused it causes a disturbance and it inflicts trauma—and this is why they must be banned immediately and effectively.