Gun policy’s slippery slope
WASHINGTON — After the Aurora shooting, some gun control supporters began immediately hunting through the wreckage for scraps of political advantage. It showed all the sensitivity and consideration of starting a food fight at a funeral. It is one thing to draw lessons from tragedy. It is another to hang a political banner on an occupied cross.
At the proper time, however, the drawing of lessons is appropriate. What happened in a theater outside Denver was not an act of God—not the moral equivalent of an earthquake or meteor strike—but the act of a mentally unbalanced man with access to destructive weaponry. The quest to separate the mentally ill from modern armaments may well be hopeless. But it is at least worth a discussion.
There are two questions to consider. First, would tighter gun control laws—say, one banning the AR-15 that James Holmes allegedly used—have prevented the Aurora shooting? It is a difficult case to make. A committed, intelligent mass murderer will find a way. Gun control laws do not reduce massacres in the same manner that OSHA regulations reduce industrial accidents. Massacres are purposely monstrous violations of the law, which marginal changes in the law are unlikely to prevent.
But there is another question: Given the existence of mental illness, criminal gangs and various ideologies of violence, what is a rational design for our gun laws? How do we preserve the right of self-defense and respect the rights of sports enthusiasts while complicating the plans of the violent? The goal of gun control, in this case, is not to prevent specific crimes but generally to limit the destructive options of criminals.
This is a perfectly constitutional enterprise. In the Heller decision—which recognized an individual right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment—Justice Samuel Alito took pains to point out that the court was not overturning a variety of restrictions on that right, including prohibitions against gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, and gun bans in schools and public buildings.
The guarantees of the Second Amendment are no more absolute than the guarantees of the First. The right to keep and bear arms does not mean the right to keep and bear tanks, shoulder-launched missiles, or fully automatic machine guns. All gun control policy—unavoidably, by necessity—is conducted on a slippery slope. The legal treatment of assault weapons, or of high-capacity magazines, is a prudential judgment, not a constitutional one.
Restricting general access to certain destructive technologies is difficult but not hopeless. Fully automatic weapons—the kind that keep firing until the trigger is released—are heavily regulated and very difficult to obtain. If a fully automatic machine gun had been readily available at his local Bass Pro Shops, can there be any doubt that the Aurora killer would have bought and used one?
The assault weapons ban in place from 1994 to 2004, however, was not particularly successful. In prohibiting 19 specific brands of weapons (along with copycats), the law’s judgments seemed arbitrary. A gun that resembles a military rifle is not inherently more lethal than an aesthetically innocuous weapon.
But the law’s prohibition of high-capacity magazines—capped at 10 rounds—strikes me as prudent. A 100-round, drum-style magazine—the kind the alleged Aurora murderer had in his AR-15—is highly useful to someone intent on mass murder. It is less useful for an average citizen intent on self-defense, unless they fear home invasion by a foreign army.
Such laws are always a balance. In this case, the gain in public safety would be relatively small—restricting access to a destructive technology used by killers at Aurora, Tucson, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech. But the burden on gun rights would be minimal. Defenders of high-capacity magazines argue they are more convenient at the gun range because you can fill up a large magazine before leaving home. There is a constitutional difference between the argument “I need to defend myself from aggression” and “I’d prefer to reload less at the range.”
I am open to the idea that other measures—particularly improving the capacity of the mental health system to identify people with emotional problems—should have a higher national priority. Reasonable gun laws are not a panacea. But neither are they a threat to the Constitution.
They merit a debate—not driven by ideology, but by prudential judgments on public safety.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group; email michaelgerson@washpost.com.
Aug 2, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
The gun arguement is pointless here. If he had no access to any sort of firearm, he still would have found a way to proceed. Being that he is highly inteligent and had access to chemicals enough to "booby-trap" his apartment, what's to say he couldnt have crafted a bomb...hidden inside a bag or costume (as many people were dressed up for the occasion), placed bomb under a seat, and non-chalantly walked out of the theater. Such a bomb would have been not only easy enough to conceal, but would have caused far more damage, far more injuries, and far more deaths. He had every intention of killing, every intention of getting caught...it was the attention he craved...which the media has given him. No ban on any particular gun model/type/etc... would have prevented it.
Aug 2, 2012 at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why aren't the anti gun people complaining about Nuclear Weapons, theirs no use for them......except while Countries like China, North Korea that know we have them, they don't use theirs against us. Same with Guns, if Criminals know you have them they will find a Easier Target , like you the unarmed citizens , it is Simply a Deterrent !
Aug 2, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is not a gun control issue-except for liberals who think they can outlaw crazy. John Lott has analyzed years and years of data and the data shows that the more guns equal less crime.
Aurora Colorado has very strict conceal and carry laws and yet it is continually among the most violent cities in colorado. Same for DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami, etc.
When will the lefties outlaw 5 gallon home depot buckets? More children die drowning in these buckets every year than are killed by children bringing guns to schools?
The lefties could eliminate the majority of highway deaths-if they passed laws restricting the speed limit to 15 miles per hour, saving 45,000 lives per year and mandating that all passengers wear helmets and that all auto manufacturers install 4 or 5 point seat belts. Think of the lives saved! If it would save only 1 child-this would be a good idea for the left to run on!
Aug 2, 2012 at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
There isn't any more "legitimate use" for a car that can go over 100mph than there is for 30, 40,100 round magazines...The former causes much more death and destruction from its illegal use than the latter.
Aug 2, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
dtb- Of course I'm not saying there is no legitimate purpose for cars, that would be silly. I'm asking what legitimate purpose is there for one that can go over 100mph, especially one that weighs 2 tons and can go 100mph or more.
If no car could go over 60mph we wouldn't have these wild police chases that cause death and destruction and that is only one example of many.
Aug 2, 2012 at 6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
creature, of course you can protect yourself and your property while waiting for the police to arrive. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. The point being argued, is centered around HOW you propose to defend yourself. Do you really need to fire off hundreds of rounds to protect your house? In all fairness, you aren't really allowed to shoot anyone unless your LIFE is in immediate danger. Your house is insured. If someone intrudes, get your family out safely and escape the situation if you can. If you can't, shouldn't a regular handgun be more than sufficient to protect your family from danger? Why do you think it is ok to have assault weapons that are intended for mass-killings?
Aug 2, 2012 at 6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
The anti-guns posters have yet to make a solid point and plenty of name calling. I do regret altering MM name but figured what is good for goose is good for gander. In the anti-gun imaginary world, where everyone is honest, loving and there is no crime then guns would be limited to hunting. In our real world, there are reasons people carry and own guns. I still am waiting for one of you to tell me how to keep my family safe when there are no police? I do not accept the wait for police to come answer because it takes way too long for a response. Explain why it is acceptable for some scum bag to step foot into my home with bad intentions and not ok for me to use deadly force? As long as there are violent criminals roaming free there will always be a need to own guns. When you’ve been a victim of a violent crime or witnessed a family member experience unspeakable, horrific events then you’ll understand. Pray you don’t experience these things as it will change your view of the world forever.
Aug 1, 2012 at 11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
truth, if you're referring to cars, there is a legitimate purpose for those and your "analogy" is flawed. Cars are a virtual necessity in today's society and serve many useful puposes. A gun is designed and built with 1 purpose - to kill.
Aug 1, 2012 at 10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
There is no legitimate purpose for something that weighs 2 tons and can go over 100mph either...Great potential death and destruction but no one says anything about that.
Its hypocritical.
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
creature, please give up the "guns as a defense" fallacy. By definition, something that is defensive is something that repels or prevents an attack. A shield is defensive. A bullet proof vest is defensive. A condom is a defense. A gun is an offensive weapon. It is designed and built to fire bullets; a weapon of attack. It is not defensive.
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtbvBgfI0...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=end...
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Motorman: America has Long love affair with guns and we view guns right there with freedom they are the same thing here in the USA , What you are saying Motorman is that you really want to get rid of the Constitution . You like it your way and to hell with the laws on the books and other peoples Rights !...
History of Countries who have banned firearms: BANNED Pt 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVgqtnpBS...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3kpuYALC...
Aug 1, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
So Motorman, would it not be more tragic to allow an individual like that to keep shooting?? Theres an inherent risk in any type of response. All concealed carry users that I know practice often and follow rules of engagement, even in a shooting range. Criminals are indiscriminent users, they simply don't care who gets hurt.
Aug 1, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
I for one Love that in Our Constitution it allows us Rights that Separate us from the rest of the World . Freedom of Speech, Religion, and the Right to Bear Arms . I'll keep mine thanks , but you can give yours up if you want .
Jul 31, 2012 at 6:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
It's too bad someone wasn't legally packing there, it may have been a totally different outcome if they had. I have a concealed carry permit, but I don't usually carry my weapon. So many people are freaked out by it if they see it at all. It's nice to know that I can carry, if I so choose. I was contemplating about buying a smaller weapon that is virtually invisible...I will now, not because "I'm paranoid," but because if their is a next time,(God forbid.) maybe myself or another legal carry person could make a difference and save lifes. It would be nice if we had a way to weed out these nut jobs, it's a terrible price at times that we pay for having a free society. My heart goes out to the victims and their families.
Jul 30, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Motormouth our society is not civil, that is the point of having guns for protection. If it was there would be no crime, no need for police and prison.
Jul 30, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
If I like guns why does that make me paranoid? Ok, so if the laws did change to where no civilians could purchase the so called assult rifles or high capacity magazines how much of an affect would that have on safety in the country? Now remember there is already 200+ million weapons in the US. Instead of more gun laws, how about actually enforcing the ones on the books? I guess that doesn't sound much different than enforcing laws about entering the country illegally either!
In all seriousness, the guy that shot up the Colorado theater had nothing in his background about crimes commited but was being treated for schizophrenia. This would never show up on his record becuase of Dr./Patient confidentiallity laws in place. Should this be changed, well that could be a very sticky situation for which I doubt would every be changed. Unfortunately bad things happen to good people for no good reason and will never change. Mental disease or not, it was still a personal choice to do what he did. Inanimate objects are not to blame because they don't do anything unless a choice is made to use them as a weapon to do harm or commit murder. Guns, bombs, automobiles, baseball bats, tire irons, hammers, etc.... are only as dangerous as the intentions of the individual willing to use them as a weapon!
Jul 28, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Law enforcement have semi-auto. Why? So they aren't out gunned like the Great California bank robbery shootout.
I don't want any politician deciding what or how big of weapon I need.
They did that in Mexico, it didn't make Mexico safe.
With some 200 million guns in America, (90 guns per 100 people: Reuters 8/07) Americans will never turn in their guns, no matter what law is passed. If that makes American citizens law breakers, than so be it.
The argument to limit high capacity magazines only work if the criminals will go alone with the law.
Marine Corps rules #6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start
with a "4".
Jul 28, 2012 at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bunkers and mines...comical...maybe your naïve ways will keep your family safe but if other law abiding people choose another way that is their right. Keep your head in the sand, hope or pray the government will protect you and when they don't what then? Nothing wrong with being prepared. Keep the jokes coming and avoid any attempt at a real point.
Jul 28, 2012 at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
I believe that anyone who owns one of the AR-15, AK-47 type weapons does so for the purpose of self defense. Self defense of your home and family during a time when conventional measures would not be effective. During hurricane Katrina, Rodney King riots and recently the Colorado wildfires there were many instances of chaos, looting and a breakdown of social order. It is times like these where you will not be able to count on the local police to help you. The people who want to remove guns from the legal public landscape are sadly misguided. Murders,rapists and miscreants are the first ones to react during times of social breakdown and there are not enough police to defend everyone at the same time.
Jul 28, 2012 at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Like Mitch Albom's recent column [July 22], a balanced, well presented discussion of an important topic.
. . .
Folks who take an extreme, All-Or-Nothing stance on the issues discussed here are well advised to read both Gerson's and Albom's pieces. Multiple times.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.