Is the issue black and white?
or varying shades of gray?
GUN CONTROL
Gun control is said by many to be able to hit what you aim at.  Others define gun control as the elimination of the personal and private ownership of guns.  I pose the question as to whether either extreme is right or wrong.

Start by addressing the fundamental issue at the core of the discussion.  I believe that neither extreme has defined, in their own minds, what is the underlying issue and that is part of what is causing the disparity between the extremes.  The basic issue is the perspective of personal safety.  Those people that push for gun control believe that guns owned by private citizens pose a threat to society when used improperly (or in violation of the law).  Those people that push for the right to own guns believe that gun ownership is the best way to insure one's own liberty.  Those in favor of gun control are watching out for everyone else, the people in favor of gun control are watching out for themselves.

So, the question comes back to perspective.  Should government have the right to issue controls for the individual or should the individual be guaranteed the right to exercise personal choice?  The Bill of Rights was not a whimsical addition to the Constitution that was added at the end of the Convention.  The Bill of Rights represents one of the most sweeping compromises in the history of American politics.  At the completion of the Constitution, many attendees believed that the document provided the basis for a strong central government and the Bill of Rights represents the compromise between a strong central government and specific, defined personal rights.  Based on the compromise, the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary to insure the rights of the individual over the rights of the government to establish controls that hindered those rights. In other words, each person has the right to protect himself, instead of government protecting society from the individual.  Many people forget that the protection of society from the individual is the purpose of the laws, whereas the protection of the individual rights is established in the Bill of Rights.  History teaches that the Bill of Rights defines specific areas of protection from government control, which was the result of the sporadic and random rulings of the King of England.

Getting back to the basic question of gun control.  Any attempt by the government to eliminate the right to bear arms or restrict gun ownership is a violation of the Bill of Rights.  Let's assume that we eliminate the right to bear arms, what's next?  The right to free speech?  Each right has and continues to impact society as the limits of personal freedoms are explored.  The right to free speech comes under a constant attack from legislation and the Supreme Court continues to strike down the resulting laws.  Basically, the Supreme Court continues to insure the right of choice by the individual.  Proponents of any position often refuse to allow the opposition the same rights that they are exercising in demanding change.

So really, is it about guns or weapons of death and destruction?  September 11 proved that airplanes can kill more in one moment than the most powerful guns, however, please remember that the weapons used to gain control the aircraft was not a gun, it was a box cutter.  If guns are eliminated, then what's next?  Will utility cutters and screwdrivers require a permit?  Will the use of a kitchen knife require supervision by a police officer?  It's not the gun that's the problem; it's the use of the gun.  It's not the box cutter that's the problem; it's when used as a tool of violence.  It's not the gunpowder that's the problem; it's the maniac that puts it in his sneaker to blow up the plane.  Society has the responsibility to develop laws that determine the actions that are considered to be improper and when those laws are broken, then the offender needs to be punished.  However, gun control is predisposition of the guilt of the gun owner and the relationship of the gun to the commission of a crime.  This condition is in direct opposition to the premise of "assumed to be innocent."

Proponents of gun control point to all of the various incidents where a gun was used in the commission of violence.  The sniper in Washington D.C., the Nursing College murders at the University of Arizona, and the rampant Postal worker.  Would these crimes have been eliminated if there were strict gun control laws?  Probably not, there are other ways to kill when the objective is to kill and one must consider that strict gun control simply means that the Black Market of guns will expand beyond it's current levels.  A bumper sticker read, "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."

Is the selective elimination of gun models that can be owned by the general population an acceptable alternative?  Once the first gun model is controlled then there will be a cry for the second and then the third, and so on.  Gun control is fought not because everyone needs to own an Uzi, but because once the control starts, where will it end? 

Am I in favor of gun control?  No.  Am I in favor of waiting periods and background checks? Yes.  Am I in favor of mandatory training for all gun owners? Yes.  Am I in favor of mandatory gun and ammunition safekeeping? Yes. 

For me the question becomes one of insuring the personal safety of the individual from violence, threats and intimidation without regard to the weapon used.  The bully on the schoolyard is just as much of a problem as the gangs that steal the purse of the elderly citizen.  I believe that the problem starts with the parents, but that's another topic - Parental Liability for Juvenile Actions.
Editorial: Tucson Citizen, Tucson, Arizona  11/27/02

Gun Makers Should Be Accountable
    If 48 US Senators sponsored a bill that provided immunity to companies like Enron from charges of negligence and corporate irresponsibility, the public would be asking what rock Congress lived under.  Sadly, this is exactly what might happen to an entire industry: the gun industry.
    The gun industry is the only industry that is not required to meet any safety standards in the manufacturing, selling or distribution of their product.  And, their product is the only product designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to kill another human being, which makes is al the more curious that his industry has no safety standards it must meet.
    Manufacturers of toy guns have to meet more safety standards that manufacturers of real guns.  Now, certain gun-lobby senators are trying to sneak through Senate Bill 2268, which shields the firearms industry from accountability for their dangerous and irresponsible actions.
    Lawsuits raise the vital question of the legal responsibility of the gun industry, from manufacturers to dealers.
    In the wake of the sniper killings in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., we learned that the Washington gun dealer who sold the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle could not account for the gun.
    In fact, he could not account for more than three hundred guns, a fact that should raise a red flag for manufacturers and distributors.
    Where's the accountability for the gun industry?  In a year where "corporate responsibility" is the new buzz phrase, how can Congress contemplate giving one industry a special exemption - a free pass - at the expense of innocent victims?
    We require car manufacturers, through lawsuits, to manufacture a safer car and because of this thousands of lives have been saved.
    The gun industry should be subject to the same legal standards of conduct that govern all other people and industries in society.  Tell our senators to vote no on Senate Bill 2268.  Suzanne Saenz

REPLY:
The AWARD for the Stupidest Argument in an Editorial goes to ... Yes, put those hands together for... SUZANNE SAENZ

There are five different topics discussed under a single headline.  It would have been easier to say: "I don't know what is going on and yet I have an opinion."  Exactly what is the point of the comments (besides, I don't like guns and think that they should be banned)?  The comments are a mishmash of topics and accusations that have no logical pattern or depth.
- Start with a reference to Enron: has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but can cause an emotional, knee jerk reaction.
- Immunity to charges of negligence and corporate irresponsibility: Now we are getting somewhere, but once again, emotional, big topic, no specifics.
- Congress living under a Rock?: No argument, but once again, nothing to do with the topic.
- No Safety Standards in the Gun Industry: this may be a fact, however, there are three areas covered by this one topic, manufacture, distribution and sales.  Where exactly do the safety standards belong?
- Give me a break: "one purpose and one purpose only", is this an emotional appeal or what?
- Safety Standards for toy guns refer to the ability of the product to be used AS INTENDED, without causing harm to the user, mainly, parts that can swallowed and choked on, projectiles exiting the barrel at a force high enough to do damage, etc.  If a real gun does not explode when fired then it is performing AS INTENDED. 
- A dealer that couldn't account for guns sold is a criminal issue between the dealer and the ATF authorities and represents ONE dealer out of thousands.
- Accountability, Corporate Responsibility, Exemption: What is the point?
- Expense of Innocent Victims?  cross off as emotional battle cry.
- Hate to break the news, lawsuits did not cause the car industry to change the safety standards, lobbyist from the insurance industry caused that one, the lawsuits only come into play after the fact.
- Define GUN INDUSTRY: Manufacturers, Sellers, Buyers, Ammo Makers, WHAT?

Senate Bill 2268 is actually referring to H.R. 2037.  This bill is intended to prohibit a lawsuit against anyone that makes or sells guns or ammunition, where the gun or ammunition is not defective.  A lawsuit cannot be brought against the makers and sellers if the guns are used for any unlawful misuse or criminal activity.

The purpose of the law is to keep trial lawyers from going after the deep pockets of the gun manufacturers when a gun is used in a criminal or unlawful manner, it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAFETY STANDARDS FOR GUN MANUFACTURING, SELLING, ETC.

The bill says that you can't hold a gun maker responsible for the final use of the weapon, if the use is unlawful, the criminal must be held responsible.