The gun control debate is one of the most contentious political issues of our time. After yet another horrific shooting last week, I understand the impulse to do something — anything — to combat this issue by further regulating guns. My fellow columnist Jesse Berman’s op-ed last week urging new “common sense” gun control legislation is emblematic of this impulse. But unfortunately, by framing the debate around “common sense” reforms, Berman suggests there is a simple solution to stop these senseless attacks, if only the recalcitrant politicians bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association would start valuing the lives of innocent victims over campaign endorsements. But the unfortunate truth is there is no quick fix to this problem. Implying there is — and that politicians are simply being bribed into not supporting it — obscures the complexity behind the issue: namely, that those who oppose gun control do so not because they are stooges for the NRA, but because many gun control measures are quixotic endeavors unable to curtail gun violence. All new legislation must be judged not by its intentions, but by its efficacy, and Berman’s proposal should not go unchallenged simply because we feel compelled to act.
Berman initially argues Congress should pass a law requiring universal background checks on all individuals who wish to buy a gun. Because individuals seeking to purchase guns from federal firearms licensees are already required to pass a background check, such a law would primarily target the much-touted “gun show loophole.” This phrase, however, is misleading. Gun shows and Internet sales do not enjoy special protections from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Thus what Berman is currently proposing would manifest as a law expanding the background check system to include private sales between individuals. Such a law is prima facie appealing. The problem is it is naïve to expect that such a law could be enforceable in any meaningful sense. There is no reason to think outlawing private gun sales between individuals will be any more effective than current laws banning drug sales between individuals. Such a law would also face significant legal and practical constraints, as even the Obama administration concluded after examining the issue.
Moreover, the efficacy of background checks in general should be in question. The Oregon and Roanoke shooters both obtained guns legally after passing a background check. The Charleston shooter should have failed a background check, but an error made by the FBI allowed him to obtain his gun legally as well. The lesson gun proponents draw from these stories is simple: government background checks cannot keep guns out of the hands of all individuals dedicated to committing mass murder; thus, we should not make it harder for law-abiding individuals to legally purchase guns to defend themselves.
Berman then makes a peculiar point about individual state’s laws, assigning partial blame to Oregon for allowing handguns to be carried legally on college campuses. But this logic is overly simplistic, as it implies prohibiting guns on campuses could somehow prevent a man intent on breaking the law from bringing a gun on campus. Berman likely realizes this, and thus quickly moves on to an article linking strong gun laws to lower rates of gun deaths. What isn’t mentioned, however, is that the data used in this study includes accidental shootings, suicides and even self-defense. In a debate over how to best prevent the next mass shooting, citing such data is extremely misleading. A more relevant study focusing specifically on homicides finds no correlation between state homicide rates and state gun laws. Moreover, the gun homicide rate has steadily declined over the last 20 years, even while the amount of privately owned guns during this time period has increased by over 100 million. Thus Berman can’t simply point to that one study as evidence stricter laws will result in less crime, just as gun advocates can’t assume more guns will cause further reductions in crime. The relationship between specific gun control measures and their effects on crime is incredibly complex, and asserting that a few tweaks to the background check system will reduce mass shootings is disingenuous.
Berman then introduces a new argument entirely, stating he has “trouble buying the notion that bearing arms is a right,” instead arguing “it should be a privilege to be able to own a gun in the United States.” While a perfectly legitimate belief to hold — he is far from alone on this — it is at odds with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. And yet Berman does not call for an outright repeal, thus demonstrating he either doesn’t know the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, or that he simply thinks Congress shouldn’t let that stand in the way. I don’t believe Berman is advocating repealing the Second Amendment, and this demonstrates the danger inherent in the gun control agenda. Knowing amending the Constitution is an incredibly arduous process, gun control advocates — well intentioned though they may be — must necessarily use Congress to erode the right to bear arms as much as possible. Thus for those who value the Second Amendment, supporting legislation unlikely to make any meaningful impact on reducing gun violence simply because we feel compelled to “do something” is not the right approach to take.
But that does not mean there is no hope. Perhaps when Democrats stop demanding the same ineffective gun control measures after each shooting, and when Republicans cease deflecting all blame onto our nation’s mental health system, there will be a chance to find some common ground. Until then, however, the same tired conversations will plague our political discourse, and the problem will persist.
Matt Winesett is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
