The problem with the US gun debate

Here at Tufts, it is easy to pick a side on gun control. Most of us agree that fewer guns in the United States would be better for the country. The rising number of mass shootings lands a spotlight on gun control in the United States, a chilling reminder that much of the United States is steadfast in their support of gun rights despite the atrocities that continue to make headlines. Unfortunately, as in many social debates in our secluded piece of Massachusetts, there is a lack of differing opinion -- so much so that it’s almost impossible to have a conversation about guns that does not devolve into our liberals condemning the conservative minority’s opinions on personal liberty. Many conservatives believe that more guns is the solution -- more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will lead to less gun violence. The liberal solution, however, is more complicated.

I am completely in support of gun control. I believe there are far too many guns in the United States (as there are more guns than people), and the legislation limiting the average citizen from obtaining a weapon designed for killing is woefully inadequate. However, the plans for limiting gun ownership in the United States are half-baked at best -- many of us would love for the government to march around Texas confiscating guns from their owners, but the solution is not that simple. Americans look around the world for models on gun control, yet none seem applicable; no nation has the gun culture of America or as popular ownership. The Australian buyback program was a compulsory compensated buyback program, a system that would violate both the second and fourth amendments. Additionally, only seven percent of Australians owned guns compared to the 34 percent of Americans who own guns, so a buyback program on the American scale would be much more expensive and improbable. The British gun ban, often lauded as one of the most successful anti-firearm policies in the world, traces back as far as the early 1900s. As a result, there is no sense of entitlement to guns in the United Kingdom and therefore no staunch opposition to modern gun control. No gun control legislation that could apply to the American scale exists in the world.

In order to put any plan into action, you might want to consider joining the National Rifle Association (NRA) -- for $25 a year, you will receive complimentary gun catalogs, invitations to local gun shows and, most importantly, the right to vote out of office the current NRA vice president and ardent firearm advocate Wayne LaPierre (who is the man behind the quote, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”). According to a 2013 report from the Pew Research Center, there are currently 300 million guns and 80 million gun owners in the United States. It seems that decreasing those numbers is an impossible task, especially with gun lobbyists working as actively as they currently are. We can, however, try to limit the sale of semi-automatic and automatic guns, close the gun-show purchasing loophole and pour resources into mental health research, all in an effort to eliminate the number of guns accessible to those who may commit gun-related crimes.

Ultimately, liberals have few plans to decrease the number of guns in the United States. The right to ownership of guns is an idea that is deeply ingrained in the American psyche, for better or for worse. Vermont senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders plans to release a gun control plan, and we can only hope that it somehow outlines a feasible way to limit the number of mass shootings in this country. Until then, it might be a good idea to follow the NRA’s mantra and buy a gun.