Better laws would end gun control controversy

  Marc Nickel Nickel is a fourth-year
history student who will one day rule the world with an iron fist
(or something) to inflate his delusions. E-mail him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Marc Nickel

Gun control is a phrase we often hear in the media and on the
lips of concerned parents and students, but what do these words
really mean?

Most often it means laws to ban sales that aren’t being
enforced, criminal background checks that aren’t being done
and waiting periods that only make the illegal weapons sellers turn
a better profit.

Gun control means keeping guns out of the hands of the average
citizen for a period of time usually between one to three
weeks. It means criminals who purchase guns from BIG-5
Sporting Goods are out of luck, but those who buy them from illegal
sources aren’t impeded at all.

It’s a punishment for those of us who purchase firearms
legally and ineffective for those who don’t.

So how can this problem be solved? First of all, we need to
think about the issue rationally, something that gun control debate
lacks considerably.

We need to treat guns the same way we treat one of our other
deadliest items owned in great numbers: cars.

There are numerous laws dictating how, when and by whom a car
may be used in this country. One needs to have been
comprehensively trained, tested and licensed to operate a motor
vehicle. Furthermore, the vehicle needs to be registered with the
state.

These restrictions on vehicle use do wonders to make sure that
on the average, people on the road are comfortable and responsible
when using their cars. But for those instances when something goes
wrong, auto insurance, required by law in many states, picks up the
pieces. There is absolutely no reason why guns couldn’t be
treated exactly the same way.

Mandatory training, testing and licensing could make gun owners
more respectful and less likely to do foolish things with weapons.
I know I’m careful with my car, thanks to movies like
“Red Asphalt” that we all got to watch in
driver’s ed. Think of the footage they could show people to
explain to them the responsibility they’ll need as gun
owners.

Insurance would also render the argument for banning assault
weapons effectively moot. Much like how a flashy sports car carries
with it higher insurance rates, an M-16 should cost more to insure
than a single shot rifle. If someone wants to own a car that
could be potentially very dangerous to the public, they have to pay
for the privilege; there should be no difference when insuring
weapons.

Despite the fact that cars consistently kill more people than
guns, gun control has become an issue of national importance in
which reform is called for almost everyday.

The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reported
that in 1998, motor vehicles were the cause of 43,637 deaths while
firearms only accounted for 30,708. You may be thinking to
yourself that those numbers really don’t say anything,
because there surely must be more cars on the road than guns in
American households; however, the truth is the exact opposite.

The census reported that of the 115 million people who are 16
years and older, nearly 100 million of them drive to work. But a
study done in 1999 (“Americans’ Attitudes on
Children’s Access to Guns,” Peter D. Hart Research
Associates) showed that there are some 220 million guns owned by
over forty percent of the population in private homes.

And even though one in five gun owners keep their guns loaded
all the time, there were only 866 deaths due to accidents with
firearms in 1998, according to the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Why is it then that people clamor for
trigger locks and waiting periods? Isolated incidents of gun
violence spark an attitude in this country which leads to fanatical
protests against guns.

The gun control issue has become such a touchy issue in this
country that gun manufacturers are now being taken to court for the
actions someone takes with their product.

On August 6, the California Supreme Court struck down a lower
court’s ruling holding the gun manufacturer, Navegar, liable
for a killing done with one of it’s weapons in 1993. The
court correctly interpreted California law and ruled that under
current liability policy, gun manufacturers cannot be held
responsible for a non-malfunctioning product.

The fact that a lower court ruled against Navegar shows the
irrationality ever present in this issue. This would be equivalent
to me successfully suing Ford because a drunk driver in a Bronco
hit and killed my parents.  This is not the fault of the auto
manufacturer, as they are not and should not be required to put an
anti-drunk sensor in their vehicles, much as a gun manufacturer is
not required to put an anti-homicidal maniac sensor on their
weapons.

There is a problem with guns being used illegally and
irresponsibly. I’m not debating that point. However, numerous
products are used in illegal and irresponsible manners every day.
Computers are used to hack into databases, CD burners make bootleg
copies of copyrighted albums and people drive recklessly in their
cars. Driving recklessly is extremely dangerous and is punished
accordingly, but can you imagine the public outrage if a
congressman tried to pass a car control bill every time there was a
massive pile-up on U.S. highways?

While guns are dangerous weapons that are made to kill or
seriously injure living creatures, it’s time for us to
realize that this doesn’t make them an automatic death
sentence for people who own them or their children. When
people clamor for gun control what they’re really saying is
that we don’t want criminals shooting other people.

I whole-heartedly agree, but the only way we’re going to
get the guns away from the criminals is if we focus on controlling
illegal gun sales and gun usage and let the law abiding citizens
protect their homes and enjoy hunting.