Guns, Death, and Rights

For most people in the United States, the issue of guns used to commit acts of violence presents a problem not easily resolved. On the one hand, the Second Amendment to the Constitution means that individuals have a right to own firearms. (McDonald v. Chicago, US Supreme Court, 2010). On the other hand, during the last decade over 315,000 Americans have been killed by firearms. Compare that to the slightly more than 300 Americans killed by foreign terrorists at home and abroad during the same time period and we can see that deaths from firearms is a greater threat to Americans by a factor of 1000.

The question at hand is: How can we lessen the number killed by firearms without infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms?

For reasoned discourse to take place, all parties to such discourse have to agree that: 1) There is a constitutional right to bear arms. Although the wording of the Second Amendment leaves it open to various interpretations, the Constitution means what a majority of the Supreme Court says it means. By a 5-4 ruling in 2010, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to grant the individual right to bear arms. Until there is either a constitutional amendment that states the opposite, or a later Supreme Court ruling that reverses McDonald v. Chicago, that is the meaning of the Second Amendment; and 2) Gun violence in the United States is a public health issue. Whether one is for more restrictions on gun ownership, which the Supreme Court said would be constitutional if they are "reasonable", or whether one believes in other solutions for making our society less violent, we have to be willing to admit that using firearms makes violence easier than using other weapons available to individuals and that over 31,000 Americans dying each year due to gun violence makes it a public health issue.

Let me take you back to when you learned the philosophy of the founding of our country. We believe that all people have equal unalienable rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Jefferson) or life, liberty and property (Locke). We believe that the purpose of government is "to secure these rights." This issue presents a conflict between our unalienable rights to life and liberty and the government must protect both. Hence the conflict that reasonable people have with this issue.

I would love to see a civil discussion between reasonable people on each side of this issue. I imagine, and hope, that there are some points of policy that both sides could agree on, while agreeing to disagree on others. Some that I would throw out for discussion include the following:
1). Law-abiding, well-trained individuals should have the right to own handguns and hunting rifles.
2). There is no legitimate reason for an individual to own an assault weapon. (Definition of assault weapon).
3). The NRA has some of the best safety training available for firearms. For an individual to own a firearm, they need to pass either an NRA course on basic safety or an equivalent course.
4). It is reasonable to restrict an individual to one firearm purchase per month. This restriction would be to prevent someone from having a business supplying those who cannot pass a background check with weapons.
5). It is reasonable to require people who own firearms to demonstrate periodically that they a) still possess their weapon, b) still know how to use it safely, and c) do not have any apparent intention of using the weapon to harm themselves or others.
6). It is reasonable to require gun sellers to be trained (by video or otherwise) about how to make an educated guess whether a purchaser is planning to use the firearm to harm themselves or others. Along with this obligation there needs to be immunity from lawsuits and criminal prosecution if the firearm seller follows such procedures. This immunity would apply if they were wrong and they sold the firearm to someone who did intend to do harm, and also if they were wrong and refused to sell the firearm to someone they thought was going to use it to do harm.

These six public policy proposals are what I have come up with as a start to helping to lessen the number of deaths from firearms. I would love to hear whether you agree with these, disagree with these, or have others you would like to suggest. Please comment with your suggestions.