Government officials should promote effective gun policy change

Tuesday, January, 22, 2013; 10:31 PM | 12 | | Print

by Hector Quesada, regular columnist

More than a month has passed since Adam Lanza slaughtered 20 innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn. Almost six years have passed since the massacre that ravaged our Hokie Nation. How much time must pass until our government can do something meaningful to prevent more needless deaths?

We must first make it easier to determine the best course of action to prevent mass shootings. Until the mid-1990s, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) conducted scholarly research on gun violence. Then, the National Rifle Association (NRA) stepped in to virtually ban the CDC from using its funds to research gun violence.

The research simply was not on the NRA’s side. In fact, according to one 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide…” There goes the argument that more guns in the home magically make families safer.

Fortunately, among President Obama’s 23 executive actions — not orders — announced on Wednesday is a presidential memorandum directing the CDC to conduct research “into the causes and prevention of gun violence.” All responsible Americans should hope the intentionally vague statute blocking the CDC’s efforts in the past will cease to be a stumbling block.

Knowing what will prevent mass gun violence, however, is not enough. Our congressional leaders must also have the courage to enact the best gun safety policies.

Despite what some might say about the NRA, its influence as a lobbying group is as strong as ever on Capitol Hill. This influence derives from the immense campaign donations the organization makes to pro-gun candidates.

Yet, according to the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group, of the $10.5 million the NRA spent on 2012 elections, only 0.83 percent of it went to races that ended with the NRA’s desired result. To release Congress from the stranglehold of the NRA’s pro-gun lobbying, legislators must realize how impotent the group has become.

What about legislators who genuinely believe their Second Amendment rights will be infringed upon with enactment of any gun restrictions? This group must explain its thinking when it opposes such proposals as universal background checks and bans on military-style assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets.

With every right comes a corresponding responsibility, and our right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to use those guns responsibly and in such a way as to protect children.

A universal background check, eliminating the “gun show loophole” — whereby prohibited purchasers of weapons can acquire them without undergoing a background check — would not take away the right of lawful citizens to purchase guns.

Just as convicted felons lose their most basic democratic right, suffrage, so must dangerous persons their right to bear arms. This is not a violation of the Constitution.

Similarly, assault weapons do not belong in the hands of normal citizens; they belong on the battlefield. Neither self-defense nor hunting requires rifles with a grenade launcher or a flash suppressor. Armor-piercing bullets also do nothing but enable gun owners to kill police officers.

While the effects of assault weapons bans must be researched further, Congress must allow research to be conducted. If we are serious about stopping the epidemic of mass shootings so prevalent during the last few decades, we must come into the discussion with open minds about real solutions.

A version of this article appeared in the Jan 23 issue of the Collegiate Times.

Leave a comment 12 Comments Write a letter to the editor

Anonymous | # January 23, 2013 @ 12:45 AM — Flag Comment

Grenade launchers are regulated under the National Firearms Act meaning not just anyone can buy one. Plus the munitions that one can buy for them are only orange marker rounds that could probably do damage by the sheer of the projectile but no where near the amount of damage caused by an explosive charge. Minute point I know, but it seems like a pointless thing to include in an article unless it's meant as a scare tactic. In which case the uninformed might just believe that anyone can go around buying grenade launchers and affixing them to their evil black rifle.

" Armor-piercing bullets also do nothing but enable gun owners to kill police officers." I have a little problem with this comment. It makes it sound like people who own guns and who might have this type of munition only want to kill cops. Again seems like a pointless scare tactic to convince people that gun owners are evil and just want to kill the good guys. What most people use this round for is most likely recreation. It's kinda fun to put holes in steel plates.

Reply to this Top

Anonymous | # January 23, 2013 @ 8:40 AM — Flag Comment

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or personal protection for that matter. I keep hearing people say we need to have a discussion about "common sense gun laws," yet the anti-gun crowd consistently shows that they are unprepared to have an intelligent conversation about guns. I am not interested in discussing my rights with anyone so uninformed about the constitution, gun statistics, and the many safe and lawful uses of these firearms. I will not even consider relinquising any rights when half of the debate revolves around scare tactics and fear mongering, as demonstrated in this column.

Reply to this Top

Laundry mat | # January 23, 2013 @ 11:36 AM — Flag Comment

Its very true that most, probably over 95% (complete guess...) of people who buy and use armor piercing bullets use them for recreation. I'd say this about most guns and gun paraphernalia that people are afraid of/want to ban. The issue here is that if someone does want to use them for something other than recreation, they have access to them. It is unfortunate that recreational gun users have a passion for something that can cause so much damage. I think a lot of people, including myself, think it's really fun to shoot guns, at targets or at animals, and even more fun when the gun is really powerful. The real question here is can people give up their hobby/passion for the greater good, for the sake of the occasional horrible incident? I think it would be really hard to give up my hobby, but I guess I;m just lucky that mine can't be turned against other people to kill them...

Reply to this Top

Anonymous | # January 23, 2013 @ 1:36 PM — Flag Comment

So your opinion, is that its the moral thing to do, to give up one's hobby "for the greater good" because of the potential that the tools of that hobby can be "turned against other people to kill them." Would you then propose people give up playing baseball, because bats are used for violence more than "assault rifles." Should back yard wood workers trade their hammers for knitting needles, because hammers are used for violence more than "assault rifles." Should cooks find something else to do since knives are used for voilence? If I could show you statistics, that murderers have started using guitar strings to strangle their victims, what would you propose then? More people are murdered each year by hands, fists, and feet than by rifles of any type, so lets heap the responsibility on people with hands, fists, or feet. Does your hobby involve hands, fists, or feet? Why should the law abiding bear any responsibility, moral or otherwise, for the actions of criminals? (Source: FBI crime statistics)
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

Reply to this Top

miumiu | # January 25, 2013 @ 9:44 PM — Flag Comment