Gun Control: Have we learned anything?

It has been roughly one year since the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, one of the deadliest mass shootings in the history of the United States. The atrocity left 14 children and 3 adults dead, and many more injured. At the moment, gun-related crimes that steal the headlines have been quiet, which is a good thing, but have any local, state, or federal legislators had anything to do with that? While I couldn’t find any information about local gun law changes, changes made on the state and federal levels are well-documented. The majority of these changes have worked to restrict gun access for people under the age of 18 and anyone deemed “mentally defective,” both issues related to the school shooter. While I think the intentions of all these new laws are good, I think they ignore a few key facts.

First of all, as citizens of the United States, we all have the right to bear arms. A right protected by the Second Amendment. It’s important to understand the difference between a right and “right” according to politicians on the left. According to Benjamin Franklin, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” Essentially the rights that we have defined in our Constitution are based on the idea our rights aren’t something earned by the people from the government. Rather, our rights should be protected by the government because they are fundamental to who we are as humans. So how does this apply to the Second Amendment? Well, the idea is that you have the right to defend yourself and your freedoms. The word freedoms is key here because it allows us to bear arms in defense of our freedoms from tyrannical governments and other entities that seek to infringe upon our rights.

Now I know what reasonable people are going to say: “But we don’t have a tyrannical government.” At the moment, yes, this is true, but this may not always be the case. After all, many liberals compare Trump to a dictator who threatens our rights. Doesn’t that qualify the government as tyrannical in their eyes?

What isn’t a right is the idea that we should all have free health care or housing. This would imply that if you are a doctor, I could force you to take care of me for free and never have to pay you for your services because that’s my right. Or, in the case of housing, a builder who takes months to build a house and isn’t paid for the labor or material. Basically, your rights can’t trump someone else’s rights.

So, why I am I saying all this? Because taking someone’s guns away without due process, a.k.a. them appearing in court before a judge and being deemed unfit by a trial by their peers, violates our Constitution. I agree that guns need to be kept or taken away from mentally unstable people, but they still have rights as people.

Also, the idea that raising the age limit to purchase guns from 18 to 21 will make someone more or less fit to handle a gun is nonsense. It is simply a red herring for many. Many mass shooters under the age of 18 obtained their guns illegally. The case of Stoneman Douglas is an exception, mainly due to the failure of government to follow due process, which I talked about in an article written in the weeks following the shooting. Many point to statistics collected by the Department of Justice in 2011 saying that 18 to 24-year-olds commit more gun crimes than older groups. True, but they also have the highest victimization rate. I believe this can largely be attributed to gang violence because homicides involving guns are disproportionately committed by gang members who typically fall into this age range. So, perhaps a better way to curb overall gun crime would be to keep guns out of the hands of gang members? This statement in and of itself deserves its own article to further justify, but let’s go with this premise for now.

Aside from gang members, who use guns to kill other gang members, those who have fired a gun have tremendous respect for the weapon and do not take the power lightly. Anyone who is 18 or 21 will have the same respect for that weapon across the board. Plus, this is denying someone a constitutional right because of their age. Many compare the age limit to the drinking age, but consuming alcohol is not a right. Additionally, what about all the young men and women who serve in the military and are trusted to handle more sophisticated firearms in combat, but not at home for self-defense? At the very least, there should be an exception made there.

So, back to the premise of this opinion piece: Have we learned anything? I would argue maybe. We’re not looking at the perpetrators themselves, but rather characteristics so common that these laws make it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy guns to defend against those who don’t abide by the law.