Baldwin: America has moved past time for gun control discussion

How many massacres does it take for there to be a serious discussion about guns in this country?…How many massacres does it take for there to be a serious discussion about guns in this country? James Holmes shot twelve people in a movie theatre in Colorado. A white supremacist walked into a Sikh temple and took down six people. A recently unemployed person opened fire in midtown Manhattan. Now-deceased John F. Shick walked into the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic and killed two people in March. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the face at a supermarket. A physician opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hood. These are only some of the major events of recent times, but the U.S. has a long history of massacres. The time for conversation and debate on guns has passed, and the time for action is here.

In order to have a conversation about guns, the arguments of pro-gun Americans need to be stripped, and the discussion needs to revolve around facts. There are approximately 100,000 deaths or wounds inflicted by firearms each year in the U.S., and there have been one million deaths caused by firearms since 1968 in the U.S. alone. One claim made by pro-gun activists is that guns are required for self-defense, even though quantitative data demonstrates that a firearm is 22 percent more likely to be used for suicide, criminal assault or homicide.

Pro-gun activists will often claim that gun violence is also on the rise in western Europe, a place that liberals reference as a gun-free haven. It may be true that gun violence in western European countries is more prevalent recently than it has been historically, yet levels are substantially lower on average, and we could learn from the European model of gun control: no guns, no exceptions. In Norway, where last summer a neo-Nazi opened fire on government officials and adolescents, there are 1.99 gun deaths per 100,000 citizens annually. This was the largest act of public violence in the last 30 years in Norway. In Spain, there are’s 2.28 deaths per 100,000 citizens annually. In France (where gun regulation is looser) there are 4.60 deaths per year. Finally, topping the chart of industrialized western democracies is the U.S. with 8.40 firearm deaths per 100,000 citizens per year.

The only rational solution that sensible citizens should propose is the prohibition of firearms among civilians. Why anyone in 21st-century America needs a handgun, a military-style rifle or stockpiles of ammunition is incomprehensible. To quell the fears of confiscation for those who already possess a firearm, they could be grandfathered in and could be permitted to keep their weapons until death or misconduct. Eventually, over the course of the next 50 years, weapons could be phased out of civilian hands. The pro-gun activists would immediately reject this type of sound policy, and therefore both sides must compromise in order to reach an amicable solution that moves America forward.

A more mutual solution would make firearm purchases very difficult, and those individuals who already owned firearms would be subject to substantial regulation and scrutiny. People with certain psychological disorders (as determined by a psychiatrist) and ex-convicts and should all be prohibited from owning guns. Also, parents living with their children, as well as urban populations, shouldn’t be permitted to have firearms, because the amount of damage an accidental misfire could do is much higher because of the presence of children or a denser population.

Military-grade weaponry and bulk amounts of ammunition serve no purpose in the civilian realm, and no compromise should include provisions to continue permitting the sale of these mass killing devices. Holmes had purchased 6,300 rounds and an M-16 semiautomatic rifle, and not a single red flag had been raised as to why a young graduate student would need sufficient weaponry to obliterate the population of a small town.

For those not in one of the prohibited categories, they should be required to pass a litany of tests before making firearm purchases. Potential gun owners should be required to undergo background checks and mental health evaluations, as well as providing references, a description of what they plan on using the gun for, how they plan on storing it and an explanation of their desire to own a gun. Gun owners should be subject to random and periodic checks by law enforcement. If we are going to permit the ownership of lethal weapons, the state has an obligation to provide an abundance of regulation and safety checks to minimize the risk of erratic behavior and to prevent another massacre.

The National Rifle Association often claims that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The question must be asked, how do people kill people? If we take away the lethal instrument can we stop the killing? Or will they find other methods? If we can at least take away one substantial method of killing, it will be a step in the right direction. There will be a reduction in homicides, suicides and accidental wounds, all of which inflict emotional pain on the collective conscious. A step toward more gun regulation is a step toward civility and a safer America.

Write Eric at eab73@pitt.edu.