The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

Center for Politics, Converge U.Va. hold gun rights and responsibilities panel

The panel focused on the political arguments for and against gun control

<p>Panel members included Department of Politics lecturers Carah Ong Whaley (Left) and Jim Todd, associate professor Gerald Alexander (Right) and Center for Politics Director of Global Initiatives Daman Irby.</p>

Panel members included Department of Politics lecturers Carah Ong Whaley (Left) and Jim Todd, associate professor Gerald Alexander (Right) and Center for Politics Director of Global Initiatives Daman Irby.

Students, faculty and community members gathered in Minor Hall Tuesday night for a panel discussion entitled “Gun Rights and Responsibilities: How to Move Forward.” The panel was co-sponsored by the University Center for Politics and Converge U.Va. with the goal of bringing together a variety of viewpoints to discuss a path forward on gun control and gun rights.

Panelists included Department of Politics Lecturers Carah Ong Whaley and Jim Todd, Assoc. Prof. Gerard Alexander and Daman Irby, Center for Politics director of Global Initiatives. 

The panel was moderated by Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball — a website which analyzes elections across the country and is operated by the University’s Center for Politics and Prof. Larry J. Sabato, founder and director of the center. 

Kondik began the discussion by asking each of the panelists to define the Second Amendment and explain how the government should deal with it.

“It means whatever the courts think it means, and that’s one of the problems with our Constitution,” Todd said, adding that Republican and Democratic judges are likely to disagree on restrictions to gun rights. “What we think is a reasonable restriction is probably something we can’t all agree on. But then that’s what America’s all about. We have discussions and debates.”

Ong Whaley responded to the opening question by discussing the history of the Second Amendment and its changing interpretations over time. She said that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to provide protection against the tyranny of government, but added that its meaning has rapidly evolved. 

Alexander expressed a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment that conflicted with the views of the other panelists. 

“I think that the Second Amendment means basically what it says, which is that you should not abridge individual rights to bear arms,” Alexander said. “Given the extent of gun ownership in America, the issue is not the amendment. The issue is the simple fact on the ground of pervasiveness of gun ownership that makes changing its legal status a completely separate question.” 

He later added, “The question is can we work on gun restrictions in ways that don't infringe the rights of people who are using guns in ways that don't harm anyone?”

Kondik provided background information for the audience, saying that there are an estimated 300 million guns in the United States which accounts for almost half of all the civilian-held firearms in the world.

The panelists and audience members disagreed with each other on many other issues, including whether it should be legal for citizens to purchase military-style assault weapons and whether lawmakers should turn the gun debate into a mental health issue.

Each of the panelists responded to questions that Kondik asked, and the audience was encouraged to ask questions at the end to begin a dialogue on how to move forward with gun reform.

During the discussion, the panelists outlined how political groups have different opinions on gun control.

“Where we start to see the divergence of opinion between Republicans and Democrats is when we get to assault weapons,” Ong Whaley said during the discussion. “A lot of this divergence is over how do you define it, and what does it mean when we get into some of the specifics.”

Alexander contended that liberals and progressives need to engage in the idea that gun laws cannot be overturned.

“The notion that if you just want to pluck guns out of the hands of people is a conversation that maybe made sense 75 years ago, but does not make sense in a country with more than 300 million firearms in circulation,” Alexander said. “The notion that you’re just going to cast some law and that’s going to just deprive the Nicholas Cruz’s of this world, the ability to get their hands on one or more guns, I just don’t understand the conversation we’re having.”

Irby followed by stating that it is common for young teenagers in rural areas to be given a gun as a gift. He said that individuals from New York City may not have the same experiences and worldview as an individual from Montana, who may be used to guns. Todd agreed, but countered Alexander’s argument that gun reform is useless by adding that the debate is less about cracking down on handguns, self-defense guns and hunting rifles and more about regulating assault rifles.

“My thinking has evolved considerably on this, and it’s something that happens as you go through life I think,” Todd said. “I just no longer see any need for a human being to have a gun that shoots 100 rounds a minute. And I think that sort of thing is not protected by the Second Amendment and if you go back to original intent … they didn’t know what we’d have in terms of capability.”

“What happens in the future is going to depend on how much the young people in this country who started this attention getting movement stay involved in it,” Todd added. “Education, dealing with the problem of mental health, access to guns, but we can't get any of that done without a general support that's widespread in the community.”

Irby suggested that eliminating bump stocks could be a useful policy change that does not take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

“Most would agree that we don’t need to be able to convert a semi-automatic weapon or gun that shoots when you pull the trigger to one that shoots automatically when you pull the trigger,” Irby said. “By starting one, with one policy at a time then you can start to potentially make changes.”

The panelists also addressed the gun reform debate in the aftermath of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Kondik asked the panelists if they thought the Parkland shooting was different from other mass shootings.

“I fear part of the reason it was different was because they were bright white kids,” Todd said. 

During the question and answer section, a student asked Alexander why he thinks gun control efforts are useless. In response, Alexander said, “Why are you so sure this is a gun problem and this is not a mental health problem?” to which the student responded, “Why can’t it be both?”

Second-year College student Jack Wilkins founded the Converge U.Va. program in October 2017 with a group of University students. The student-led initiative is aimed at narrowing the divide between students of opposing political views and fostering productive dialogue across party lines.  

“We think that people who disagree with each other need to humanize one another,” Wilkins said in an interview with The Cavalier Daily. “It really helps to have conversations with the people who disagree with you and that through these conversations we can make inroads on some of the biggest issues.”

Wilkins said the Center for Politics came up with the idea of putting on a panel discussion and worked with Converge U.Va. to formulate a topic. They decided that gun control was a timely topic that affects students.

“The goal is to have a productive conversation on this incredibly important issue,” Wilkins said before the event. “Hopefully to find some common ground on moving forward, to understand some of the other arguments on the other side and to hopefully incorporate those into a path that works to advance some of the things that need to be done.”

“I think that students will really benefit from getting a nuanced view of the entire issue,” Wilkins added. “By understanding opposing arguments, your own argument comes into sharper focus. So I hope … that this discussion will help students in a lot of different ways when it comes to thinking about this issue differently.”

Irby said he thought the event brought a diverse group of students and community members together to find common ground.

“Events like this are really important because we have come together,” Irby said. “I guarantee you, there are a lot of different perspectives in this room. Probably some of them more rural perspective, and definitely some perspectives that are abhorred by any kind of gun ownership. That’s why I think that events like this are really important, so we can learn from each other and at least gain differing perspectives.”

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt