SOYOUWANNA KNOW ABOUT GUN CONTROL?

2. LEARN THE ARGUMENTS FOR MORE STRINGENT GUN CONTROL

The Argument: We've all seen the tragic story on the news too many times. A small child somehow gets hold of a gun with devastating results. Equally tragic, an inexperienced or careless adult is handling a gun only to have it fire accidentally. These tragedies all cry out for the government to regulate the gun industry, forcing them to produce a safer product. Smith and Wesson recently conceded as much when it pledged to include trigger locks on all future guns that it will manufacture. Yet, its efforts are but a first step towards fingerprint-sensitive triggers that can only be fired by the intended user.

The Response: No one disputes the enormity of the tragedy when a child misuses a gun. But responsibility for preventing such disaster lies not with the government but with the family. Too often, the Federal Government attempts to resolve problems that it is too clumsy and slow to counteract. We need to encourage families to educate their children, to teach their children about morals, and to instill in them a recognition of the consequences for their actions. A policy of mandatory trigger locks ignores this reality while raising the price of guns for honest Americans who are capable of using the weapon responsibly.

"The Government has the right to regulate gun purchases
to keep them out of the wrong hands."

The Argument: Every year, thousands of criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes. Shouldn't the government be given the right to stop such purchases? Policies such as background checks and mandatory waiting periods deter criminals while negligibly limiting the rest of us. Clearly, the societal gains from these measures are well worth their cost.

The Response: One of the basic rights in this country is the freedom to purchase and consume without government intervention. If a woman suddenly feels unsafe in her home, why should she have to wait a week before receiving a gun? If a father wants to take his son hunting on the spur of the moment, what right does the federal government have to stand in his way? A gun registry is the government's attempt to render honest citizens helpless.

"Gun users should have to register their weapons with the Government,
making them more accountable for their actions."

The Argument: Guns are not an everyday purchase like eggs or umbrellas; they are uniquely powerful tools that can devastate lives. Organized society is supposed to protect its citizens from this potential for violence. To advance this cause, the government should monitor and record those who purchase weapons, as well as any distinctive features of the weapons themselves. The only ones threatened by this policy are criminals, as it would be a tremendous aid to law enforcement. Governor George Pataki of New York recently outlined a plan for his state in which all guns purchased would first be fired and a record made of their distinctive shell mark. Pataki is a Republican, and his proposal demonstrates that figures across the political spectrum understand the benefits of a mandated gun registry.

The Response: Why aren't the police authorized to fingerprint every citizen and keep the information on file? The answer is that we Americans are rightly wary of government intruding in our private lives. Criminals would find ways to circumvent legislators' typically clumsy efforts, leaving a database filled with honest citizens who could serve as potential scapegoats. A gun registry could be the first descent down a slippery slope of invasive and misguided government monitoring. Additionally, the money involved in creating and maintaining such a system would be enormous; the funds could be better spent on other areas.

"No self-respecting sportsman shoots deer with an Uzi.
We should ban semiautomatic weapons."

The Argument: Automatic weapons have been severely restricted in this country since 1934. It is long overdue for semiautomatic weapons to join them: such guns are only useful to kill others and are potentially the most devastating. They are of no use for sport and are not intended for use other than in military engagement. Although current laws ban the manufacturing of new assault weapons, they "grandfather" all guns produced before 1994.

The Response: The government is not fit to decide what warrants adequate protection. Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens be able to arm themselves as amply as the criminals? The outlawing of assault weapons is nothing more than a first step towards a thinly veiled plan to ban all weapons in this country.