Gun control vs. Privacy Rights

The government gave us the right to bear arms. There are people living amongst us that should never have access to arms. The system has failed us by allowing these persons access to arms. Criminals will always find a way to get arms. We need the right to bear arms because the government cannot protect us. This collection of true statements best sums up the thorny issue put before our Supreme Court.

Regardless of our forefathers intentions when wording the Second Amendment, today’s society, being as violent prone as it is, should hold greater sway over our right to bear arms.

Our police force is not of a sufficient size to protect the citizenry. Therefore we need to do it ourselves.

In the absence of verifiable training and competency in handling a weapon capable of dealing out death, no one should have access to any handgun. In an ideal world, no mentally unstable person would have access to a handgun. But that is not our currently reality. We have to be able to protect ourselves. If a person chooses to own a handgun they should be allowed to but only after extensive education, training and background checks.

The need for background checks is not debatable. The requirement for more stringent and reliable screening, along with even tougher penalties for anyone selling a handgun used in a crime by a person determined to have been a high risk, is not debatable. The base issue for achieving more stringent and reliable screening revolves around the ability to collect all pertinent information on every individual living in this country and the ability to share data between states. Without the ability to collect and share this data you cannot expect a thorough and complete examination of an individuals past history.

Americans value their privacy and laws have been enacted to ensure that they continue to have their privacy protected. So, just how far are the citizens of this country willing to go to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?

Criminals, of course, will always find a way to get a handgun. The mentally ill has in far too many cases bought handguns legally. The everyday law-abiding citizen, who is most at risk from the other two groups, is more often refused a handgun permit due to lack of proof of the need for one.

The majority of citizens are law abiding, good people and permitting them to carry a handgun is not going to instantly turn them into criminals or embolden them to the point that they will resort to using it. The real test comes when faced with road rage or some other heated moment of passion that could lead to a greater chance of serious injury or death, to their intended victim and/or innocent bystanders, if a handgun is at the ready. These situations are the most worrisome and illustrate the paramount importance of the utmost care in determining a persons mental, moral and ethical health before being given a gun. But even careful scrutiny will not guarantee public safety.

An extreme but very real example: a jittery, nervous single mother expecting retaliation from someone she is protecting her neighborhood and home from expecting someone to break into her home could possibly be more likely to shoot at anything that moves and ask questions later. This makes this type of person a serious threat to the public.

Another very real example: the misinterpretation of the motives of someone trying to get your attention to save you from some other threat that you may not be aware of could be shot as an intruder or antagonist.

The right to bear arms should definitely be given in times of national emergency so we can assist the police and military, granted not a likely scenario but possible. The right to bear arms otherwise should also be allowed but only after thorough background checks and training. We have a long way to go in balancing privacy rights with the rights to bear arms before we can prove we will not become an even greater threat to ourselves by giving everyone handguns.

The bottom line is we have allowed the worst common denominator among us to dictate the need to carry a weapon. And in this undeniably violent society we are not addressing the very real need for anger management to help us control our violent urges. Nor are we addressing the moral and ethical issues needed to respect one another. Until we address these issues none of us is safe from ourselves, whether we carry a gun or not.