Gun control has been bought into the limelight again in the USA after the school shootings at Sandy Hook elementary where 20 kids and 8 adults were killed by a gunman with an AR-15 semi automatic assault rifle.

Every time an incident like this occurs, there is heated debate about the role of the 2nd Amendment in the United States. Some argue that it is a constitutionally protected right that cannot be removed, while others argue that it is an antiquated ‘right’ of an era long ago and that its applicability today is out of touch.

The number of gun related deaths is in the USA is phenomenal. In the month since Sandy Hook, 900+ gun-related murders have taken place (according to a speech given by Obama on Jan 16). The number of deaths in any 1 week period far outweighs any single event (averaging over 600 p/w), though the impact is muted when compared with a single event like Sandy Hook. It takes a tragedy of this magnitude for people to step back and realise how bad the gun situation is, even on a day to day basis.

It’s nothing new though. America has always been a gun culture society and this to some degree explains the large number of deaths. Other countries e.g. Canada and Switzerland have similar gun ownership rates, yet experience minimal incidences. It may be that they are not as obsessed with their guns. In America there are more more gun shops than supermarkets, and gun shows are attended by thousands every week. In many states guns can be concealed and taken into shops, churches etc. The NRA has a membership of over 4.3m with 250,000 joining in the last month. Gun shops have sold 3 years worth of ammunition in 3 days alone. It only seems to reaffirm how much Americans love guns.

There seems to be a mentality that in order to be safe, more people need more guns. Everyone needs to have the ability to point a gun at the face of someone else, then we can all feel safe. The NRA trumpets that if we have more guns then these incidences won’t occur as the shooters will be apprehensive to shoot when the public is armed. It’s a nice line, but it’s nuisance that reality doesn’t quite work out that way…

Fort Hood (where a LARGE number of guns are kept) was raided by a gunman and 13 were shot dead and more than double that injured. It would be laughably ironic if it weren’t so tragic.
Columbine had it’s own set of armed guards that had no effect on the killers Klebold and Harris.
Virginia Tech college had its own police station on campus, it too was unable to stop the killing of 32 people.
Aurora Colorado Batman killer shot dead 12 people in a movie theater. Not one person had any effect in fighting back out of an entire cinema’s worth of people.
And the latest incident at Sandy Hook, the killer used his own mother’s weaponry against her while she was sleeping. So much for keeping yourself protected when you can’t even afford to sleep.

More guns is a band-aid solution that doesn’t work. The problem is simple. Guns are too easily obtainable, too powerful and have the ability (due to large magazine sizes) to do an enormous amount of damage in a short amount of time. The answer is less guns, not more.

While it won’t deter the determined shooter, it will have an affect on those who can take advantage of high-end weaponry with little in the way of resistance. Adam Lanza was able to use an AR15 (basically a civilian version of a military grade M16) without any effort on his own behalf. The guns were not even locked away, and many states don’t even mandate this.

Anything with the potential to cause significant harm should be met with at least some difficulty. The ‘cost to entry’ for guns is so low. It’s more difficult to obtain a drivers license than it is to obtain a gun. Guns are easily bought (can go into Walmart and buy one) and require only rudimentary checking. Some checking may even be circumvented if buying privately at gun shows (which is a loophole that is currently being looked at).
More restrictions are necessary, and a few case studies show that reducing guns is actually effective.

In 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people in Port Arthur Tasmania. Howard declared all high powered weapons illegal, except for those who can demonstrate a legitimate use. Since the gun buyback scheme has been in place there have not been any mass murders to date.

Scotland had a similar ‘Sandy Hook’ style tragedy in Dunblane 1996,  that caused an upheaval and rethink in gun legislation. Its worst ever school shooting with 16 deaths including a teacher. The government enacted a ban on all firearms and hand guns. There have been no mass shootings since.

America is a different case, banning guns goes against the provisions allowed by the 2nd amendment, so it’s difficult to legislate out, though there have been some reforms in the past, so it’s not untouchable, though it needs to be dealt with delicately.
In 1986 the BATF banned the registration of fully automatic guns such as M16’s (Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act) and it’s now not possible to purchase any new automatic guns, though existing ones before 1986 are grandfathered in and can still be purchased (but the prices are exorbitant).
It’s a sensible move, and not even the powerful gun lobbies have tried to repeal this. Probably because they see how reasonable and effective it is in saving lives.

Then again in 1994, legislation was put in place to ban semi automatics (with a sunset clause to expire in 10 years). Unfortunately this time around the gun lobbyists, mostly those aligned with the NRA, rallied against this and were successful.

After this latest shooting, it’s clear something beyond a token gesture needs to be done or else this scenario will be repeated year in, year out. People get outraged, the same arguments fly around and nothing gets done. I believe Obama is in a position to make some reasonable changes to address the situation and give it some finality. It will require working within the confines of existing law and the protections of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd Amendment reads:
“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.”

The original intent of the amendment was to keep the government in fear of the populace, being a check and balance to ensure that the government did not descend into tyranny without fear of a retaliation from the people.

There is the argument by some gun enthusiasts that semi automatics fall under the definition of ‘arms’. The phrasing is quite loose, though I’d surmise that the original writers of the constitution would never have foreseen the increase in capacity and power of guns (at a time when front loading muskets were available and no rapidly firing guns existed) and the way in which the original intention of the amendment had warped from a necessary ‘protection against tyranny’ to a ‘free pass’ to stockpile and use as many weapons as you like.

The problem is how to class the set of weapons that are defined as ‘arms’. By arms, we could include guns and firearms, but beyond that it could be argued that tanks, IEDs, grenades, explosives, attack helicopters etc. could all be classified as ‘arms’ and thus protected. Most people would not consider it appropriate to own these things.  So there comes a point where the definition of arms has some bounds. If you consider it okay to own a semi automatic, but not to own a tank, you’ve just applied your own subjectivity on how arms are classified, so why is it not appropriate for someone else to apply theirs when it comes to semi autos?

Enacting a ban on high capacity and high powered firearms is an entirely reasonable and sensible step and it’s a good to see Obama take a stance on this. Banning semi autos, limiting clips to no more than 10 rounds and requiring background checks in all instances strikes a fair balance in keeping the 2nd amendment rights in place (by allowing the use of handguns, pistols and rifles) but taking away those things that are just killing machines. No hunter needs weaponry that powerful, nor is anything beyond a handgun necessary for self defense. Senator Diane Feinstein has put together a pretty comprehensive bill, and it looks to be pretty fair from my viewing of it.

The NRA and other gun loving rednecks will no doubt twist the good intentions of the proposal and try to claim that the government is trying to ‘take away their guns’, and they have significant lobbying power over politicians which will cause difficulty in getting any new legislation through. There’s already a fear-tactic ad campaign that claims that Obama has several armed guards looking after his daughters at school, but won’t support armed guards at your kid’s school. (link)
It’s a pretty dis-ingenuous argument. It’s easy to see that if you’re a high profile public figure (i.e. the President of the USA), your children are automatically more likely to be targeted. The NRA wants armed guards in all schools, which is a good countermeasure, but they won’t address the root cause and are all about reactionary measures and keeping guns in circulation.

Sensible gun legislation will surely result in fewer deaths and even has majority support. 85% of Americans support increased background checks. Will it deter the determined killer? No it won’t. But it will almost certainly put a dampener on killings that are due to high powered guns being readily available. A look at the graph since the gun assault ban was lifted shows that deaths have risen sharply. (sourced from http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/26/16169576-chart-before-and-after-the-assault-weapons-ban?lite). Legislation does work.

A look at any recent statistic show that the US is consistently in the top-5 of gun related deaths, and for a first world country free of poverty, warlords etc it’s a pretty alarming statistic. Gun control will go a long way to curbing this number. Not in it’s entirety, mental health funding is lacking and is also a contributor, but with the right acts to remove the ‘ease of opportunity’, numbers will surely drop. I guess time will tell.