Extended Writing Task Gun Control

question_id: 357

What should the United States do about their gun control situation?

Pro Gun Control – Susan Milligan

Opponents of any kind of gun restrictions argue that they are meaningless, since criminals by definition don’t follow the law, and therefore won’t allow gun laws to hamstring their criminal behaviour. That’s true. But gun violence isn’t only committed by classic criminals, as recent gun-related tragedies show.

There’s the 12-year-old who apparently took a shotgun out of a musical instrument case and shot and injured two classmates at a middle school in New Mexico. His behaviour would make him a criminal (and what is a 12-year-old doing with a gun?). But most likely, his classmates and teachers did not see him as your basic law-breaker. He was, the Los Angeles Times reports, a bright but distant boy. He was able to get a gun because his family is a gun family, enjoying hunting. Are they criminals? It doesn’t sound like it. The boy simply had easy access to a gun, without which he would not have been able to do the damage he has done.

We don’t yet know the circumstances of the origin of the gun used, but could the tragedy have been averted had there been mandatory safety stopgaps – either on the weapon itself or with a requirement that the guns be kept in a locked structure?

A man in Florida, meanwhile, shot and killed a fellow movie-goer after said viewer refused to stop texting. The annoyance of the shooter is more than understandable – and many of us might have no problem with grabbing a phone from a theatre-goer, throwing it on the floor and stomping on it – but the fact that this man felt he could shoot and kill someone for behaving so boorishly is alarming. Is he a criminal? It didn’t sound like it, based on evidence from before the shooting. In fact, he was a retired police officer with a spotless record. And early reports indicate he thought he was being threatened (turns out the “threat” may have just been thrown popcorn).

The point is that he had a gun, had it with him in a movie theatre, and could not have killed someone if he had not had the weapon with him. If people were not allowed to carry concealed weapons into the theatre, this particular tragedy may not have happened.

On Wednesday night, a gunman opened fire at an Indiana grocery store, killing two people with a semi-automatic weapon before police shot and killed the gunman. That offender may well have been a classic criminal before the episode. We may never know, as he can’t tell us his back-story. If he was a troubled person (and his behaviour suggests that he was), would a simple background check have kept him from getting such a gun?

Ban guns and only criminals will have guns, we are told. Put restrictions on gun ownership, or require people to undergo background checks first, and we will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns for protection, gun rights advocates say. They are right on both counts. But it would still prevent a great many murders.

Anti-Gun Control – National Rifle Association of America

In recent months, several traditionally anti-gun states, and Colorado have enacted laws that abuse the rights of the average citizen and offend their corporate citizens. The situation has led to an exodus of gun manufacturers to more friendly climes, with anti-gun states losing the significant tax revenue and jobs these companies provide.

Amongst the companies that have chosen to relocate is Magpul Industries of Erie, Colo., a manufacturer of AR-15 parts, accessories and magazines. Magpul warned the state in February that the company would move if legislation banning standard capacity magazines passed. In March, Gov. Hickenlooper signed a ban, and Magpul set out in search of a new home, possibly in Texas.

Another refugee is Kahr Arms of Rockland County, N.Y. Following New York’s enactment of the so-called S.A.F.E. Act, Kahr announced that it would be moving some of its operations from the Empire State to more gun–friendly Pennsylvania. Prior to New York’s new law, Kahr had been considering building a new facility, with 80-100 additional jobs, in Orange County, N.Y. When asked about the move by the New York Times, Kahr Vice President of Sales and Marketing Frank Harris said of New York, “We don’t feel welcome.”

PTR Industries, a maker of semiautomatic rifles in Bristol, Conn., has also chosen to move. In reaction to Connecticut’s recently enacted legislation, the company confirmed in June that it would be moving to Aynor, S.C. Similarly, fellow Connecticut gun maker Stag Arms and the Palmetto State have shown mutual interest.

Other manufacturers, such as Sturm, Ruger & Company and Beretta, have sought out firearm friendly states for their expansion plans, with Ruger opening a new plant in North Carolina. Even Remington, which has built firearms in Ilion, New York, for over 150 years, is reported to be looking to move part or all of that operation to a gun-friendly state.

Manufacturers looking to move or expand are in a buyer’s market, as several states have rolled out the welcome mat. Back in June, the Hartford Courant detailed recruiting trips by fervent gun rights supporter and shooter, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who were seeking to convince Connecticut manufacturers of the virtues of their states. Stag Arms CEO Mark Malkowski told a reporter for the National Review that the company had received “about one hundred offers” to relocate.

It is not surprising that the radical anti-gun legislatures and governors in these states failed to consider the impact these extreme new laws would have on businesses and the jobs they support. Restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans is a far more important goal to these politicians than protecting the jobs of their constituents. Fortunately, our federalist system gives people and businesses the opportunity to locate in states that continue to respect the individual rights of Americans and that best represent their economic interests.