Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Op-Eds
News Opinion Op-Eds

The right time to talk about gun control

Newtown, Conn., has just experienced the single most horrid gun tragedy in our nation's history. Yet we are admonished once more that to raise the issue of gun control in the aftermath of such tragedy is untimely or even opportunistic. It is, of course, neither. Claiming that it is somehow inappropriate politicizing to point out how our current legal climate facilitates, or at least contributes to, these horrors is offensive. More to the point, the argument against relying on such events to discuss how our understanding of the right to bear arms has run amok rests on false premises.

In the aftermath of each of the most significant gun massacres - San Diego, Calif. 1984 (21 killed, 19 injured); Killeen, Texas 1991 (23 Killed, 20 wounded); Columbine, Colo. 1999 (13 killed, 21 injured); Blacksburg, Va. 2007 (32 killed, 25 injured); Fort Hood, Texas 2009 (13 killed, 29 wounded); Aurora, Colo. 2012 (12 killed, 58 injured); Newtown, Conn. 2012 (26 killed, 20 age seven or under) - gun rights advocates have repeated that the "answer" is more guns, not more gun control.

The logic is simple. Guns are accessible, and we must accept that as fact. Because guns are out there, the only way to stop such crime is to ensure the availability of guns for those who are responsible and who will therefore use them for good. If more guns were in the hands of those who would deter such attacks, then there would be a reduced incidence of gun crime or, at a minimum, a possibility of stopping such massacres in action. So the answer to gun violence is more guns, not less, just as in the context of the First Amendment, the answer to offensive speech is more speech, not less.

No doubt this argument has a certain internal logic, but it is hardly uncommon for seemingly logical arguments to rest on a false premise. The false premise here is easily identified: the Second Amendment "right" to guns will, of its own force, get guns into the hands of people who would use guns to defend against such horrible crimes. And yet, if those who favor gun control must take as given the accessibility of guns, surely Second Amendment enthusiasts must also take as given that for good reason, or just as a matter of personal sensibility, many, or even most, law abiding citizens will continue to opt against exercising this right.

As a result, it cannot be assumed that expanding gun access is somehow the panacea, or even a counterweight, to the onslaught of gun crime. At a minimum, this reality check serves as a cogent response to arguments against regulating access to the sorts of firearms that have no legitimate connection to self-defense or hunting, but that were used in Newtown and other violent gun massacres.

The debate over gun control cannot take place in two juxtaposed theoretical worlds: one in which everyone has arms and the other in which no one does. The hard questions arise because we live in the real world. In that world, some choose to exercise their Second Amendment right responsibly, and others carelessly. (Carelessness includes failing to curb one's gun enthusiasm when faced with even a remote risk that someone exhibiting significant behavioral problems could access one's weapons.) And, of course, some people are simply evil, profoundly mentally disturbed, or both.

We can choose to make it more or less difficult for everyone to gain access to guns that have no justification except on the battlefield or in the hands of highly trained and licensed law enforcement agents. Arguing that individuals could protect themselves and others with guns is beside the point if many are not willing to do so based on a well-founded difference of opinion as to risks and benefits of owning firearms. (Even the most responsible among us can have a house broken into and lawful guns stolen when no one is home.) Certainly we should be able to agree on ending access, once and for all, to the sorts of firearms capable of generating such unimaginable violence as ending the lives of 26 innocents, including teachers and children just 6 and 7 years old.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for 20 years, I care deeply about my constitutional rights. Two quite recent Supreme Court decisions, each issued within the last five years - certainly not a deep-seated constitutional tradition -for the first time found that the Second Amendment creates an enforceable individual right to bear arms and extended the right to limit state and municipal handgun regulations. The Supreme Court's decisions in those two cases were far from obvious.

Yes, these decisions have their defenders, although I will concede that I am not among them. I certainly do not blame recent events on two Supreme Court cases. But these decisions have emboldened, and even distorted, arguments against the most plainly necessary regulation of firearms. Although we are stuck with these cases, at least for now, it is time to infuse this conversation with basic sense. That begins by rejecting the claim that raising arguments for reasonable gun control now, in the aftermath of the most horrible gun tragedy we have ever witnessed, is somehow impolite.

Maxwell Stearns is a professor of law and the Marbury Research Professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law. His email is mstearns@law.umaryland.edu.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • How to reduce gun violence

    How to reduce gun violence

    At a time when Baltimore could desperately use some good news when it comes to the prospects of reducing violence, research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suggests we may already have taken a key step toward preventing gun homicides — it just may take a few years for us...

  • NRA selectively interprets 2nd Amendment

    NRA selectively interprets 2nd Amendment

    As sure as nine people have been butchered by yet another gun-wielding maniac, there will be an outcry for more laws controlling the sale and registration of firearms, and the NRA will again claim they are heroically upholding the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen by opposing such...

  • Do concealed guns reduce crime? Let's find out

    Do concealed guns reduce crime? Let's find out

    Despite expert opinions, statistics and moral condemnations, the debate on gun control continues. Until the law permits everyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon to do so legally, there is insufficient data to decide for or against ("How to reduce gun violence," June 12).

  • Gun laws aren't enforced

    Gun laws aren't enforced

    The people screaming for more gun control and more gun laws and all the other useless ideas should be finding out why the laws now in place are not being enforced. The last maniac to shoot up a theater should have never been able to purchase a gun but evidently some judge did not do her job ("Gunman...

  • Another mass shooting, and who's responsible?

    Another mass shooting, and who's responsible?

    I am a cinema buff, and I went to the Charles Theatre recently to see a wonderful film. While there I realized that another mentally ill person decided to vent his furies in a movie theater. This time in Lafayette, La. ("La. shooter a drifter with 'hate in his heart,'" July 25). This is the USA,...

  • Fix the background check

    Fix the background check

    As inspiring and overdue as America's reassessment of the Confederate battle flag has been since last month's Charleston shootings, those who wish to truly honor the victims need to set their sights to an even higher purpose. Late last week, FBI director James Comey acknowledged that alleged shooter...

Comments
Loading
75°