Founding Sons of Guns

A colleague of mine posted an editorial about gun laws for our Stage Seven assignment. Her extremely conservative view on gun control caught my eye and has driven me to critique her argument.

I, like many others, am among gun-owning, hunting-loving, Texan-born Republican family members. Gun rights are a big deal in my family; I've shot guns myself, but have never been a huge fanatic of the trade, in part due to my opinions on animals rights. I don't have anything against people who hunt or own guns at all. I do, however, frequently feel frustrated with the people who are completely "gung ho" about any single issue, because this implies that they've failed to acknowledge the pros and cons of controversial topics such as this one.

I agree that guns are definitely not the direct cause of violence in today's society, just as cars are not the cause of wrecks, prescription drugs are not the cause of overdoses, etc. These variables and their occasional effects only are correlated. Those with a motive to do harm to themselves or others will always find a way. Those who really want a gun will get one. If they can't get one legally (which isn't so hard to do; see below), they'll likely steal or borrow it from someone they know.

However, while I don't believe banning guns as a whole is the solution, gun laws most certainly need to be amended, and by "gun laws" I'm not referring to the vague ones written in our constitution. I'm referring to the ones that dictate who can purchase/register for guns and how they go about doing it. I'm not sure that private gun sales are the safest route, though I do see this method's advantages. I could say I think private sales should be outlawed, but then that would bring about arguments like "Just because it's illegal doesn't keep it from happening" and "If we ban private gun sales, won't we have to ban the selling of other potentially dangerous weapons?" It's no wonder this issue is debated over so much amongst our citizens and our politicians. It's such a complex issue which doesn't seem to have any really effective solution.

As I posted in the participation topic about concealed handguns on school grounds, our background check system is severely flawed, allowing "maniacs" to obtain guns fairly easily through what is considered to be a safe and reliable process. The Virginia Tech killer obtained the guns used in his attacks by passing background checks at two different dealers. Despite being ordered by the court to have a psychiatric assessment done to evaluate his mental health, Virginia deemed him eligible to buy a gun, according to their background check database. Plenty of states report incomplete or inaccurate background check information to the NICS (National Instant Background Check System), and some report none at all. The reason the Virginia Tech killer probably slipped through the system, along with his state's faulty records, is that no one really has defined the levels of danger associated with mentally ill people in relation to weapon ownership. The system is broken; there's no doubt about it. If more people realized this, I know more of us would be supporting the changing of gun laws. It's not about individual rights; it's about public safety and the government programs entrusted by the people to promote it.