More on gun control: utilizing a healthy rationale

Moderation is key Credit: skepticink.com

As thoroughly established in last week’s blog, it’s entirely implausible to revoke all gun rights with the second amendment’s clarity in establishing the right to bear arms. Equally erroneous is the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) tirelessly obstinate refusal to consider anything resembling regulation or compromise.

Both sides need to take a break from either polarity in order to find some sort of common ground if we are to resolve anything in this controversy. Such common ground is hardly extreme. We review five “commonsense” options as provided by San Francisco Chronicle reporters Erwin Chemerinsky and Robert Steinbuch. (For an idea on how nonsensical gun laws can be here in the States, look no further than another one of our previous blogs.)

  1. Extend background check requirements: Most notably, this should include gun show sales and private sales. This loophole is too big to ignore and of which is too easy for potential criminals to take advantage.
  2. Expand the FBI’s database with more thorough information: Today, the requisite information is hardly sufficient in determining whether the consumer can be considered safe. The background checks should require more information about the individual.
  3. Reinstate liability of gunmakers: Thanks to heavy lobbying efforts from organizations like the NRA, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed in 2005, effectually removing any liability a gunmaker could have in a lawsuit. Gunmakers should be held responsible like producers of all other legal products.
  4. Certain weapons ban: The phrase used here by Chemerinsky and Steinbuch is “weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill a large number of the public in a short amount of time.” They also make the point that society has always been assertive in setting limits on the availability of the most dangerous weapons. It is quite reasonable to regulate such weapons without challenging the second amendment.
  5. Regulate magazine size: There have been instances in which gunmen (Cherminsky and Steinbuch cite the Long Island Railroad killer) have been stopped only when they ran out of ammunition in one magazine and needed to change to another. The application is obvious: if the magazine had less capacity, the opportunity to stop him would have come sooner and before he had the chance to kill more people. Larger magazine capacities hardly serve any other functional value.

 

 

Advertisements
  1. Guns are not cars. Cars are not covered in the Constitution. End of discussion.

    lwk
    free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com

    • The objective isn’t to promote gun regulation as cars are regulated; it is to compare the two just to view guns from a different perspective, and that, especially considering the extreme danger concerning guns, they should be regulated more stringently. If you continue down below (or any of our other two blogs on gun control), at no point do we suggest gun regulation policy by car regulation. The image is there just as food for thought.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: