Gun Control: What is the
Answer?
Often, the gun control
issue is faced with only two starting points: support or opposition. With this
limited mindset to the issue, we fall in the trap of defending ideas but jeopardizing
effective solutions. A broader, but still limited way of thinking about it is the NA, MA and AA consideration, or respectively: no abolition, moderate abolition
and absolute abolition. One important reflection is that restriction vary in strength
and in content. For instance, the issue and possible solutions surrounds not only on the right to bear, but who owns a gun, how it is obtained, where and how it is
stored and carried, so on and so forth, enabling us to have a content approach to the issue (LaFollette, 2007; Farrell, 2018).
I believe citizens have
the right to bear arms, but the context must be taken in consideration as the
ones mentioned above, for example. I do not believe it is a solution for
violence though, and neither I believe it is necessarily a good idea. The right to bear guns is supported, in the United Stated of America (USA), by second amendment, which says "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (Yuhas, 2017; Mervosh, 2020, Cornell Law School, n.d.) . LaFollette (2007),
however, says that the right to bear arms is a moral question, not a
constitutional one, highlighting the importance of compelling arguments. In
this subject matter, for instance, Governor of the State of Virginia is making
news headline lately, and people involved are already paying the price of every meaningful
and complex change (Mervosh, 2020; Beckett, 2020; Schneider & Vozzella,
2020).
Back to my perspective
of arms possession, let’s zoom out take a bigger picture of the issue. Gun control
is a complex issue in most of country, and different countries with same approaches
have different results, because the context matters. Here follows the background
of my thoughts, which I believe must be taken in consideration:
1. What the law says, in
detail? If there is a gap, first this gap must be filled, to allow powerful discussions.
2. How is the public safety
of the country? If the police are not doing their job, citizens will find a way
to protect themselves, obeying or not the law.
3. What is the purpose of
bearing a gun? Self-defense, sport, work, selling, etc.
4. What is the minimum age
to buy and bear guns?
5. How is it stored?
6. Who runs background
checks (federal government, state, city, county, private organizations) and how often? Systems on
background checks should be linked, and purchase should be under approval after
a detailed analysis. Background should not only be necessary during the time of
purchase, but in a regular basis, being part of a regulation to keep a license to bear guns.
7. How many guns one can
have? Which type of guns?
8. If it is allowed for
sports only, dedicated areas (not open and public) should be designated and
guns could be the facility’s property.
9. Arms should be carried or
only permitted at home?
10. Does background checks
should involve only criminal backgrounds, or psychological?
Only when these and other
important questions are answered, gun control can be discussed with a moral
perspective. Rallies as the one planned for 2020 January 20th, in Richmond,
does not only put solutions farther that they already are, but increase the
chances of a shift in focus (Schneider & Vozzella, 2020; Mervosh, 2020. There are no effective changes without all parts sacrificing
a piece of their believes, pride, money or whatever holds them to an extremist
point of view and to an “either or neither” solution. People will keep fighting
about guns, while in the meantime others will be using guns to fight. Until a
decision is made, one, if not both parts, is using a rhetorical speech in social
media, news outlet or streets, instead of using this time and platforms to have
a meaningful debate about the subject.
Leaders of militias and public
figures, including the President of USA, as stated in Schneider and Vozzella
(2020), are so determined on fight for their interests, that they fall in the
trap of missing the big picture and jeopardizing their impact in society. While I have no issues with my ideas being opposed,
I do not believe that by standing and watching, the mass shooting issue in USA,
for instance, will be solved. It takes efforts from all parts and forces, and a
piece of all pies. But who is willing to share that piece? Who is willing to
get up and move the needle towards the “opposite” side? Until then, the
constitution will be the only stable field to step on, the only common ground
among us all. Perhaps this, in fact, is the greatest moral issue: defending written
words while neglecting human lives.
References
Beckett, L. (2020, January 17). Pro-gun activists threaten to kill state lawmaker over bill they misunderstood. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/virginia-lee-carter-school-strike-bill-guns
Farrell, D. (2018, July). A Solution to Gun Violence found in US History. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/david_farrell_a_solution_to_gun_violence_found_in_us_history#t-787124
LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Mervosh, S. (2020, January 17). What to know about the Virginia Gun Rally. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/virginia-gun-rally-explainer.html
Schneider, G. S., & Vozzella, L. (2020, January 18). Richmond braces for giant gun rights rally on Monday. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/richmond-braces-for-enormous-gun-rights-rally-monday/2020/01/18/0dc41a76-3702-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html
Yuhas, A. (2017, October 5). The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history
No comments:
Post a Comment