More than 30,000 Americans were killed by firearms in 2006. That’s like the tragedies of Fort Hood and Columbine happening three times a day, every day, or the World Trade Center 10 times a year. It doesn’t matter who we are—Democrat, Republican, Mormon, non-Mormon, man, woman—we can all agree that the fact that more preschoolers are killed by guns than police officers are killed by gunfire in the line of duty is disturbing. Why do we put up with it?
Time and again, gun lobbyists revive the tired “slippery slope” argument to oppose even common sense gun laws, such as mandatory background checks. This lobby claims any law—regardless of how reasonable—to limit gun use in any way is part of an agenda to blanket-ban firearms from everyone. Not only is this argument ridiculous, it’s no longer valid. In a landmark case last year, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional right of private citizens to bear arms outside of a “well-regulated militia.” D.C. vs Heller deemed a ban on handguns unconstitutional and undercuts the argument that legislation like mandatory background checks is part of some larger conspiracy to seize every firearm in the country: Barack Obama is not going to come and collect your gun(s).
However, according to Heller, the right to bear arms, like most rights “is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The majority went on to state that a wide variety of gun laws are still constitutional and “presumptively lawful.” Hyper-partisan divides and extreme all-or-nothing ideologies needn’t hold back common sense gun laws anymore.
An example of one reasonable law is mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases, even for exchanges between private sellers. This is a no-brainer: without mandatory background checks, anyone can buy a gun from anyone. A background check might take a few hours or even a day longer, but it’s not unreasonable to make buying a gun on craigslist.com more difficult than buying a sofa. Guns are powerful weapons, and as Spiderman’s Uncle Ben put it, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Another reasonable law could dramatically cut gun trafficking by limiting individuals to purchasing one handgun per month. While dealing guns without a federal license is illegal, buying “x” number of guns at one time is not—little stands between traffickers selling legally purchased guns to whomever wants to avoid a background check. A one-handgun-a-month law would make it more difficult and more costly for dangerous people to acquire firearms.
The gun-control coalition is not conspiring to seize every gun in the country. There is no good reason to oppose responsible gun laws designed to prevent firearms from getting in the hands of dangerous people, such as regulating military-style assault weapons, requiring background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, and one-handgun-a-month laws, among others.
This does not have to be an argument of extremes. Heller affirms that the right to bear arms can coexist with common-sense legislation to protect and preserve the safety of preschoolers and other Americans. Step up, America. Isn’t it time we support responsible gun laws?
Lynne Gabrielsen is a business major from Riverton.
Feeds 
We see people pushing for a reinstatement of the useless semi-auto rifle ban that based on FBI UCR data, didn’t change any crime rates before, during, or after the ban. Especially as less than 2% of crimes were committed with a semi-auto rifle.
We see the USDOJ Gang Activity report 2008 identifying that nearly 80% of violent crime is committed by these gangs. We see that over 60% of these activities are funded by revenue from the illicit drug trade. So what would be more effective at reducing violent crime, more useless gun control laws, or legalization of most illicit drugs?
We see how the ATF along with comrade Clinton, changed their licensing rules in 1994. Before than, the ATF was very successful at prosecuting anyone they chose to who sold more than a couple firearms a year, so many collectors, traders became Type 1 FFL licensed, essentially having a business from their kitchen table. Of course then the McClure Volkner Act of 1986 was passed hurting the ATF’s Nazi methods. So in 1994, the ATF changed the Type 1 FFL requirements, increasing their fee’s by 40 times, requiring in house/business searches at unannounced times, and if you had a typo in your paperwork, pretty much a guaranteed felony conviction.
This reduced the number of licensed individuals/businesses by nearly 70% from 1994 to 2004 of which the majority were Type 1 License holders. So how about all those unlicensed people whom the dictatorial ATF/Government bureaucracy forced out and made it so they didn’t have to report sales, keep records, or any other reasonable tracking of firearms sales?
Oh my, that is such a large portion of those street buys all the anti gun forces complain so bitterly about, lol. Such are the unintended consequences of more gun laws and regulations. Of course we see how you all are restructuring the ATF rules to easily allow this to be changed, right?
More than 16,883 people committed suicide by firearm in 2006 per CDC data of which 90% were successful, while 16,441 committed suicide by 3 other choices, 50% by suffocation/hanging of which 70% were successful, 20% by jumps from high places of which 34% were successful, and overdose by 15% of which 2% successful.
So how many of those who survived their choices were then brain damaged by their act and survived to be a burden on their family or state? What was that percentage?
We will be patiently waiting on your brilliant mental health expose on how removing an inanimate object from the vicinity of a mentally ill person will change how they are feeling!
Worth at least casual mention here is the most rudimentary fact that-- the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a declaratory and restrictive clause written into a legally binding contract for the specific purpose of preventing misconstruction or abuse of the few limited powers granted by the people to the Federal government.
In short, the IIA to the U.S. Constitution is a LAW, prohibiting in writing, any act on the part of persons within or acting on behalf of the Federal government which in any manner could even be construed as an ‘infringement’ on the right of the people ( Freemen ) to keep and bear arms.*
The Federal government has been in violation of this LAW since at least the 1930’s, proving without any doubt that no LAW, regardless of how clearly written, ever stopped anyone from committing any illegal act. [*Source: PREAMBLE to the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791.]
Unlike some current-day authors--I’ll hazard to guess that Mr. Brigham Young was fully aware of the true significance and meaning of such words and phrases as contained in the Second Amendment.
Back in the 1850’s as governor of Utah, in response to the threat posed by government troops dispatched under the Buchanan administration to quell a perceived rebellion of Mormons in the Utah Territory, Mr. Young called out the Nauvoo Legion…a well regulated Mormon militia.
FYI, the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is the oldest and most continuous of all rights--predating and preexisting all forms of American government.
A right which, BTW is not awarded, granted or afforded by any government and exists entirely independent of, and is not dependent upon the existence of any document.
Re: D.C. v. Heller--Washington D.C. is not a State, and thus has no State legislature to which the citizens could address their grievances. The District is a Federal enclave under the jurisdiction of the Federal Congress.
Members of the SCOTUS ruled on the question of whether or not the laws already enacted by the local council of tyrants violated the rights of the unfortunate inhabitants of the District.
SCOTUS members carefully narrowed the question they agreed to render an opinion upon in order to avoid revelation that nearly every Federal ‘gun control law’ in existence is in direct violation of the law as written into the IIA.
The opinion that the RKBA is an individual right of persons unconnected with any militia is one that any person with no more than a cursory knowledge of American history already knows.
Well said. I would add also that the Bill of Rights (BOR) restricts not only the Federal Government but even state and local governments. No point in protecting abuse from the Feds only if the states are free to abuse one's rights.
As to SCOTUS. They left open lots of gun control, none of which is truly constitutional as the prohibition against regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms (ANY ARMS) by government is absolute. SCOTUS showed great cowardice. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
This editorial is so void of logic that I'm a little disappointed it was given ink. The idea that terrorist acts are somehow related to gun deaths is not only preposterous but also a slap in the face to the families who have lost loved one's to suicide (which accounts for the majority of gun deaths each year).
This editorial reflects very poorly on this news organization. Factually, this piece is devoid of any resemblance of truth.
Russell
Class of '03 and former Daily U staff member.
It is just using that statistic to show the great number of gun deaths in the U.S. It is not linking the two.
Excellent article, Lynne.
As shown in these comments, it's a difficult -- no, an inhuman task to get people to go halfway on the issue, as you suggest. People, of course, don't want to have their hands tied. It's the same question as nuclear weapons, but on a human scale.
There are good reasons for avoiding extremes: both directions carry very real dangers, some of which are also pointed out in these comments. But today, I fear we stand noticeably closer to the one extreme than the other; your "common sense" points are well taken. Anybody can get a gun; the few who can't wait a few days and walk into one of the gun stores dotting the land can instead walk into their neighbours' home, or shed.
For my part (which I admit would be unsavoury to those of differing beliefs), I take solace in the pacifism allowed by my religion, knowing that I'll never need an excuse for destroying life if I never possess the tools of instantaneous death in the first place:
"And now, [...] if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved. [...]"
you wrote:
"For my part (which I admit would be unsavoury to those of differing beliefs), I take solace in the pacifism allowed by my religion, knowing that I'll never need an excuse for destroying life if I never possess the tools of instantaneous death in the first place"
Not having the tools to defend one's life or the lives of one's family has cost families. I often read of home invasions--those that are prepared have killed or captured their would-be killers/robbers while those without arms have been killed or maimed? Would you really prefer to sacrifice your life or the live of your family, rather than to kill a predator who surely would kill you? Easy call for me.
I'm going to have to take exception to your perspective. While I admire (and share) the desire not to cause harm, remember that the same people who made that covenant in the Book of Mormon were completely reliant on the actions of others to protect them.
However, I find it troublesome that there are those in our modern society (possibly such as yourself?) who are happy to reap the benefits of peace and security while allowing others to carry the burden of providing protection, and then take a morally superior attitude towards those willing to do what they view as distasteful.
How far does your pacifism take you? Would you be so quick to eschew violence if your family was directly threatened? Platitudes are very easy to voice when a threat is remote, but bring that same threat close to home and most people's attitudes change.
The author wrote:
The gun-control coalition is not conspiring to seize every gun in the country. There is no good reason to oppose responsible gun laws designed to prevent firearms from getting in the hands of dangerous people, such as regulating military-style assault weapons, requiring background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, and one-handgun-a-month laws, among others.
Commercial AR-15s, FALs, and AK-47s are all semi-autos and shoot hunting rounds (and the AR and AK are not permitted is some places because theya re too weak for hunting) They have military-looking appearance, not performance. But the 2nd Amendment is to be able to overthrow bad governments--so why NOT own machine guns? the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed restricts govt!
Gun control proponents often display an incredible lack of logic. Criminals are people who, by definition, do not obey laws. A law, to them, is a scrap of paper. Trampling on the intrinsic right to bear arms in order to mitigate crime is rather like trying to stop an onrushing train with a box of tissue- foolish and not going to work.
As for saying "nobody is coming to get your guns"....Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by later Supreme Courts. For example, the Plessy decision in 1896 made segregation legal. The Brown decision in 1954 reversed it. Nothing the Court does is in fact permanent- it is permanent until changed. Furthermore, no government in the history of mankind can be trusted to have a monopoly on deadly force. A supine, disarmed citizenry is an open invitation to tyranny. Liberty cannot exist where the citizens completely at the mercy of the government.
GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT GUNS. IT'S ABOUT CONTROL! PERIOD. JUST LIKE THE GOLDEN RULE: HE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES. HE WHO IN CHARGE OF THE GUNS, MAKES THE GUN RULES. HE WHO HAS THE GUNS IS IN A POSITION OF REAL POWER. POWER CORRUPTS. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLY. HE WHO CONTROLS ALL THE GUNS CONTROLS-EVERYONE. EVER NOTICE THOSE "INSANE" PEOPLE WHO SHOOT UP SCHOOLS "ALWAYS" CHOOSE "GUN-FREE ZONES?" EVER NOTICE THAT NONE OF THEM, NOT A SINGLE ONE EVER TARGETED A POLICE STATION? WHY? BECAUSE THE POLICE HAVE GUNS AND WILL SHOOT BACK!!! A MAN WITH A GUN IS A CITIZEN, A MAN WITHOUT ONE IS A SUBJECT. CHARLTON HESTON SAID IT BEST: "OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"
"An example of one reasonable law is mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases, even for exchanges between private sellers."
I want to one up this one. How about we install a "reasonable" law requiring mandatory background checks for those who wish not to purchase, or offer something in exchange for firearms, but to take the property of private owners without their permission?
"This is a no-brainer: without mandatory background checks, anyone can [steal] a gun from anyone."
Just imagine how many preschoolers will be saved by having to wait "a few hours or even a day longer" (on top of a waiting period) before one can protect said preschooler from a "repeat customer"...
Exactly how does a mandatory background check stop a criminal from stealing a gun?
As far as private sales go---what other private sales do you propose to regulate. Whose firearm is it that i need permission from big brother to dispose of a firearm (i collect them, so i am not likely to get rid of one anymore than I do books, BUT the discretion is MINE on whom to sell. Is the life of a former convict any less important to him if he is attacked? All rights need to be restored if they are restored to society and if you can't trust them with a gun, why are you releasing them into society? Get the point?
Lynne, are expressing a little bit of undergrad naïveté in your article. You are assuming the criminals will follow the new laws you propose despite the fact that they aren't following current laws proscribing murder, robbery, and weapons transfers. This is just not likely the case.
If there is a law that requires background checks at private sales, do you really believe that the gangbangers causing the problems will obey that law? Most crime guns don't originate from private sales, they originate from theft.
If there is a law that limits gun purchases to one a month, will the murderers causing the mayhem obey that law? And even if they did, how would having one gun rather than two prevent their crimes?
If there is a law that bans semi-automatic rifles, how will that change the criminal's behavior? FBI statistics show that 2.6% of murders were committed with rifles of all types in 2008 (source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html).
If there is a law that limits magazine capacity, will the spree killers obey that law? They are already committing murder. Elongating a magazine is actually a very easy thing to do. Why not break that law if you are planning on breaking the law against murder many times over?
Criminals don't obey the law. Criminals will not obey any of your proposals. So there will be no effect on the criminal misuse of guns. There will also be no effect on the rate of suicide since it only takes on bullet anyway.
The fact is, if you enacted all of these proposals, the crime rate would not change a bit. In fact, crime has been trending down since the assault weapons limitations of 1994 sunsetted in 2004 (source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/14/national/main5309836.shtml). Why? Because these types of laws have no effect.
How does limiting someone to 1 gun per month protect preschoolers?
What you seemingly fail to realize is that the really bad guys/traffickers aren't buying their guns at Walmart. So no amount of making the process painful for law-abiding citizens will reduce the availability of illegally acquired arms.
They haven't failed to recognize the futility of purchase limitations on saving anyone's life whether child or adult. Their agenda is to disarm everyone (except government and criminals) the object being dependence upon government. That the carnage increases will be their justification for increasingly draconian laws and more government control. As for the Constitution--well, who cares, right?
"of safety of preschoolers and other Americans" -- that is problem right there. It starts with preschoolers--an emotional plea to save the children but with only three more words you have extended the "protection from guns" to all Americans.
The right to bear arms is at odds with the "protection from guns". That first right equals liberty. The second protection detracts from our freedom.
People that quote the number of children killed by firearms are people that don't like firearms, NOT PEOPLE THAT REALLY CARE ABOUT CHILDREN.
If they cared about children, they would do something about ALL THE OTHER MORE LETHAL ways a child can be killed in this country. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the mortality rate for children (19 and under) by firearms is far lower than just about anything else (151 per 100,000). Much lower than infantcide, drowning, fires or vehicle accidents.
Sure, let's demand action for the 151 out of 100,000, but ignore the 7,677 per 100,000 that are killed in vehicle accidents, or the 1,737 per 100,000 suicides. The mortality rate for firearms accidents is 0.2 percent where it's 44.8 percent for disease. So a child is MUCH MORE LIKELY to die by just about any other means. If these people REALLY CARED as they say they do, they would change their lives to insure more children will survive.
They could:
1. Stop transporting children in a car.
2. Close all pools in the country.
3. Make is a criminal offense to leave a mop bucket with water in it where a child can get to it.
4. Get rid of all chemicals in under their sinks.
5. Ban medicine cabinets in their bathrooms.
6. BAN ALL ABORTIONS!!!
This would mean that these people would actually have to DO SOMETHING in their own lives, which of course they really don't want to do, they just want YOU to change YOUR life. These people are not really interested in facts, they just don't like guns, and will lie and obfuscate to impose their views upon the rest of the population.
So, too all those that disagree with me, PLEASE STOP USING THE DEAD BODIES OF THE CHILDREN TO FURTHER YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA.
If we are going to reduce Constitutional rights, let's start at the top of the list. Restricting your right to free speech to trample on the rest of the Bill of Rights sounds like "a reasonable" restriction to me.
I don't necessarily believe that all gun laws are bad. There should be laws to ensure that people who want to buy a gun use it safely and responsibly. However, the notion that gun laws will somehow affect the behavior of criminals who use guns is flawed, to say the least.
We all have locks on our doors. Why? To keep out people who we haven't given permission to enter our house/apartment, right? A lock's usefulness, however, is very much dependent upon the acceptance of the lock as being a barrier to or prohibition of entry to the person who is trying to get in. It is only a barrier to those who accept it as such.
A criminal, who is intent upon getting into your house and stealing your possessions or harming you and your family, simply sees a lock as a challenge to be overcome. It is an invitation to them to try another manner to get it, be it the window, another door or simply smashing the lock. They've already decided that the law(s) against breaking and entering are no prohibition for them so, why would a locked door stop them?
Gun laws are very similar. They are a barrier only to those who recognize and obey the law. Is a burglar, who has already committed him or herself to robbing you of your possessions, going to think twice about using a gun because it too is illegal? Is someone who is intent on murder going to come to his or her senses because it's illegal to own a gun? Would criminals who have already used a gun in the commission of a crime be deterred from using one again by making guns even more illegal? No.
We have sensible gun laws. We have background checks. We have organizations that teach people who are willing to abide by these laws how to safely and responsibly use a firearm. They and only they would be affected by new gun laws. Preventing crime by making crime even more illegal is an illogical, futile and facile act that affects only the legal rights of those who already obey the law. Where's the common sense in that?
One final point: when citing statistics that "everyone knows," common sense, a concern for fairness and journalistic integrity still dictate that you cite your source, just in case "everyone" isn't familiar with your "facts." I could claim that 9 out of 10 business majors who opine on the Constitution haven't a clue as to what they're talking about but, without citing the source of this statistic, the reader has now way of knowing whether that statistic is valid or a convenient, politically motivated, manufactured factoid.
Mark Dixon
Class of 94
The writer uses the same old cliches of the gun control movement,that the 'style' of a gun should make it subject to greater government scrutiny,i.e. 'assault style rifles'.Since they use the same technology as half the hunting weapons out there,it is only a matter of time before the argument would change to demand the same control over any rifle using the century old technology of self-loading.This has happened in every country that starts regulating weapons based on appearance,as the writer recommends.Obviously,the slippery slope argument of the gun rights advocates is based in truth,while the gun control argument is based on such esoteric factors as the appearance of the gun in question.Regulation of private sales has long been a goal of the anti-gun advocates,but this hasn't worked in any country that has tried this intrusive method of government intervention in private lives.Criminals,for some reason that seems beyond the comprehension of anti-gun advocates,don't obey laws that put them at a disadvantage in confronting innocent victims.Crime rates have risen dramatically in Britain and Australia in the wake of drastic gun control measures,acording to FBI statistics.Following failed policies of nutty politicians of other countries yet again in our own country are unlikely to result in a better outcome.
Those 30,000 Americans were killed in murders, gang warfare for drug turfs, and suicides mostly. While I have heard statistics sited for the annual use of firearms SAVING lives or property ranging from some 800,000, to 1.2 million to more than 2,000,000; let us stick to the US Department of Justice figure in the 800,000 range. Would you really want to add another 800,000 victims by disarming them?
Furthermore, all the mass shootings have been in so-called gun-free zones. How's that been working out for you? Gun-free zones are in fact victim-disarmament zones. You will not EVER stop criminals or insane people from access to weapons, EVER. True, some people who are law-abiding NOW may cross the line one day. In a free society, bad things can happen. Your best bet in minimizing the damage and carnage created by such is to trust the others who are armed to stop the carnage with their own arms.
A few problems.
The author opens the article with firearm death statistics as the foundation of the argument for greater gun control legislation including background checks and limiting handgun purchases to one per month.
What I would like to know is how exactly will background checks save children? Accidents happen and children are killed when an adult is irresponsible with their firearm. No amount of background checks will expose an irresponsible adult. Too bad, we could use background checks to expose irresponsibility of all types if that were the case.
Likewise, it always humors me when good people think that gun laws will prevent the, "Bad guys" from getting guns. That is naïveté at its finest. Just last year my neighbor's home was broken into while we were at church. Guess what was stolen, all of their guns.
I can appreciate the authors desire to create a safer environment for everyone. Instead of limiting the rights of good law abiding people and placing shackles on our Constitution, how about doing something more productive?
One suggestion might be more gun education in the schools? I hear of firemen going to schools to educate children about the dangers of fires. Children are taught what to do and what not to do in order to protect themselves. The same could be done for gun safety.
One may possibly argue that a brief video or pamphlet about the dangers firearms pose to children, viewed by those who purchase firearms, may serve as a reminder to parents not to keep loaded firearms tucked in places they think are hidden but are not.
The NRA could be petitioned to promote a Gun Safety and Awareness Week using the media as an outlet to reach the masses.
It is normal for those who want to promote their own idea of something better to try to do it through controlling others. I think education is always a better idea.
Freedom does not wear shackles.
WHO gets to decide what is a 'responsible gun law'? The corrupt politicians who hate their opponents and would disarm them? The cops who would disarm everyone but themselves? How about the little old lady recently mugged? Which of the over 22,000 gun laws presently on the books seems responsible to you and why is it not enforced?
If deaths due to guns is the problem then why not deaths due to cars? More people die every year from car accidents than from the use or misuse of guns. Of the number of gun related deaths, more than half are suicides. How do you stop them?
STOP blaming an inanimate object are start using your head instead of your emotions. It is PEOPLE who are the problem. The solution is to hold people accountable for THEIR OWN actions and stop blaming inanimate objects.
It is tragic that this many people are killed by firearms. Here in Chicago, there were more than 100 home invasions in which people were shot or killed by the criminals who used firearms. According to FBI statistics, over a million folks defended themselves in 2008 against criminals using a gun. Imagine how many of those 100+ in Chicago would still be alive had they possessed a gun to defend themselves.
It's always amazing to me when opportunistic ideologues use tragedies such as Ft hood to trot out the same old hand-wringing argument for expanding the same failed gun control policies, which allowed the event to occur in the first place.
Nothing so clearly demonstrates the futility, and immorality of gun control as perfectly as an incident like this. The utter failure of absolute gun control is perfectly modeled here in the microcosm of the Ft Hood military post. All that expensive training and conditioning, all the background checks, and all those weapons and ammunition were locked up in the armory. The government owes those soldiers and their families an apology.
At a minimum, all officers and perhaps a percentage of enlisted should be designated to carry at all times, in the interest of military and base security. Don't think this incident has gone unnoticed by international terrorists. If those soldiers, or at least a significant number of them had been armed as they should have been, we would have a dozen or so brave Americans still alive today.The Second Amendment only fails when it isn't followed to the letter. If we could rewind the clock and place a handgun in the possession of only a few of those trained victims, and Ft Hood incident would have had a very different outcome.
The success of any gun control scheme rests on the total abrogation of freedom for it's success. For it to work, it must be totally enforced without regard to the Bill of rights, and we must toss out any notion of the right to self defense, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Of course, there's the little issue of the Second Amendment, which is about to be officially applied to bind the states by the US Supreme Court. In a free country with a bill of rights like ours, the best we can do, is not prevent the law-abiding from possessing the means to deliver the ONLY proven deterrent to violent crime.
If we can trust our soldiers and citizens on the battlefield, certainly we can trust them on the military base. Licensed concealed carry permit holders in 43 states have a safety history and record of responsible firearms ownership that rivals that of the police. And they are so law abiding, that if one could superimpose their crime rate on the rest of the country, we'd think we were in Switzerland, which, by the way, issues REAL assault weapons to every household.