Don't give up on gun control

To the Editor:

Like many critiques of gun control laws, Ned Andrews' column, "Gun control a matter a mistrust" [YH, 9/17/99], suffers from logical inconsistencies and a basic lack of understanding regarding the effectiveness of gun control.

Mr. Andrews' first problem is his blind acceptance of the importance of the right to bear arms. For one thing, the framers of the Constitution wrote that article based on specific historical circumstances, ones that no longer apply today. The proliferation of assault weapons and handguns, which could not possibly have been foreseen by our nation's fathers, has transformed the nature of criminal activity forever. If the right to bear arms was in-deed ever one of the "most fundamental human rights" (a claim that Mr. Andrews makes without justification), it certainly is no longer.

Furthermore, Mr. Andrews asserts that gun control laws should not exist because they "didn't stop Eric Harris of Columbine High from buying guns." Indeed, Mr. Andrews continues, "the laws against murder didn't stop him either. If a person will go so far as to kill...the law becomes only a piece of paper." Mr. Andrews seems to be suggesting that murder laws, gun control laws, and any other law that is occasionally broken is therefore ineffectual and means nothing. This is an assertion that on its very surface is ridiculous. First, murder laws most certainly have an effect. No one would ever make the claim that we shouldn't have laws against killing because people still manage to commit murder. Similarly, gun control laws also have an effect. Mr. Andrews cannot possibly believe that restricting the sale of guns fails to reduce crime. Several European nations, such as England, Denmark and Sweden, are testimony to the fact that strictly enforced gun control laws can indeed reduce crime to an astonishing degree.

Finally, Mr. Andrews argues that gun control laws only restrict law-abiding, innocent citizens from defending themselves. Again, this is incorrect. At present, gun control laws do not make it impossible for innocent citizens to own a gun. Even if they did, however, I would contend that in the long run, the elimination of guns in our society would lead to a great overall reduction in violent crime; I would again point to England as a good example.

I hope these objections demonstrate that to call Democrats who have concern for the preponderance of violent crime in this country "tear-jerkers," as Mr. Andrews does, is to show no respect for the victims of these crimes who deserved better.

—Anonymous, MC '01

Back to Opinion...