Month: March 2019

While there are many sticking points in the debate over gun control, there is one that is very controversial yet seems to receive fairly little of the public spotlight. What I am referring to is the idea that individuals who are on the no-fly list should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Before discussing whether or not this should be allowed, here is what the no-fly list actually is. The no-fly list is a subset of the terrorist watchlist, which contains information about those who are known to be or suspected to be terrorists or involved with them. If an individual is on the no-fly list then this means that they are considered by the government to be a security risk, and are not allowed to board a plane. It is worth noting that an estimated 9 out of 10 people on this list are not lawful residents of the U.S, and therefore any legislature that is passed most likely would not affect them. However, this is an issue that is still worth resolving. Even if there aren’t many people on the no-fly list that this would affect, those who are impacted are the people who are most likely to do harm.

At first, it may seem like common sense to not allow these individuals to possess a deadly weapon. After all, if we suspect them of wishing harm on the U.S and its citizens, why would we allow them to carry guns? It doesn’t really make much sense. But, as always, it is a much more complicated issue than it may seem like on the surface. The crux of the matter lies with the no-fly list itself, which has what a lot of people view as nigh-unforgivable flaws. The laws of our country are largely based on the idea that every man can have his day in court; that every citizen will have access to a lawyer, a fair trial, etc. The no-fly list bypasses due process in a way unlike any other. As soon as you are under suspicion you are limited in what you can do.

Furthermore, it is not truly reasonable to expect people to be responsible for clearing their name of terrorism before anything has been truly proved, leave alone clear their name of suspected terrorism. This task is nigh impossible. Not only this, but the mechanisms that underly the no-fly list are largely unknown. It is not publicly known what the criteria are to get placed on the list, nor how one can get themselves removed. The no-fly list itself is only really tolerated because the effect it has on most peoples lives is fairly minimal and non-invasive.

This all changes when guns are thrown into the equation. For many, the ownership of a gun is a right that they are entitled to. It is one thing to be denied such ownership after they have been proved to be unfit to for it, for example, if they are diagnosed with a mental illness. However, in their view, it is anathema for the government to be able to arbitrarily deny them their right to gun ownership without any warning, notification, or justification.

Even though a simple solution may be to open up knowledge of the no-fly list to the public, this would end up being counterproductive. Much of the effectiveness that the no-fly list possesses is due to its secrecy. If its inner workings are made public then it becomes a dog with no bite and can no longer serve its purpose. Because of this its not really an option to simply publicize what makes the list tick.

While the tone of this blog thus far may seem to be advocating that the no-fly list should not include a ban on gun ownership, my actual views are the opposite. I believe that we cannot, in good conscience, allow those who are suspected of terrorism to walk around packing a deadly weapon. However, I do understand why people are worried to put this into action. But there is a disconnect between the two sides of the argument. To those who believe that that they have the right to bear arms, guns are just that: a right. But to others, guns are a privilege. Until this disconnect is somehow bridged, no real progress can be made on this issue. In fact, the entire debate on gun control may very well revolve around this delineation. In fact, now that I think about it, discussing the mindset of “right” as opposed to “privilege” may be a good topic for the final post of this blog.

One issue of considerable debate is whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns on campuses. Currently, there are 16 states that allow people to carry on campuses, although many do leave the school some amount of leeway in determining their own rules. For example, in Kansas schools are allowed to ban firearms in buildings in which there is already sufficient security. In another 23 states, it is solely the discretion of the school whether or not guns are allowed on campus. In some states and schools, only faculty are allowed to be armed, and not students or visitors.

Proponents of the idea of campus carry, such as the NRA, say that shooters are less likely to target areas in which they believe that they will be met with armed resistance. They think that those who have undergone the necessary training and jumped through the requisite hoops should be allowed to protect themselves in the event of a shooting. However, this is (predictably) an extremely controversial issue. Those who oppose it believe that allowing people to carry guns on campus creates unnecessary risks, and opens a gateway for even more school shootings. Not to mention the possibility of a child getting their hands on a gun that their teacher owns, or some similarly horrifying situation.

It is worth noting that if legislature to allow this got passed, it would not supersede other laws already in place. For example, you would still need to be over twenty-one and have a license in order to carry on campus.

In my previous blog post I already covered why a “good guy with a gun” is unlikely to stop any shooting, especially a school shooting. To quickly summarize, an average armed civilian is unlikely to have the training or mindset to quickly put down an attacker within the 3-second timeframe that most shootings take. In fact, in the 2015 shooting at Umpqua Community College, there were multiple students armed with guns who did what everyone else did: cleared out as fast as they could. Now, I am not berating them. How can untrained students be expected to combat an active shooter, especially in a densely populated area? The very idea is ludicrous and has been proved ineffective repeatedly. When faced with a dangerous situation and given the opportunity to flee, most people take it rather than staying and fighting. In addition, those who decide to commit mass shootings most likely already know that they are either not going to survive or will be spending the rest of their time in prison. Therefore the possibility of running into someone with a gun is not much of a deterrent.

Another argument made by those who are pro-gun is that campus carry is not meant to prevent school shootings. Rather, to deny campus carry is to deny our rights as citizens under the Constitution. It embedded in our roots as Americans, and our country was founded with this being a fundamental right.

Personally, I think that this argument is ridiculous. The fact that the ownership of a gun is a “Constitutional right” may be true, but the Constitution is not very specific. It is our responsibility to interpret the Constitution as best we see fit. If we followed the literal wording of the Constitution, which is that, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” then hypothetically any person should have the right to bear any weapons in any place. Wouldn’t anythign else be infringing the rights of the people? This is obviously absurd and shows how important it is that we take our responsibility to interpret the Constitution seriously.

In the same vein, there is the fact that the Constitution was written centuries ago. The time was completely different, as were the guns available. When the founding fathers say “arms” in the Constitution, the arms they were thinking of were muskets and flintlock pistols. In the hands of a highly skilled wielder, a musket from that time period could fire a maximum of three shots per minute. It had a one-round magazine capacity and a maximum range of around 50 meters.  Frankly, I would rather have a bow and arrow.

Let’s contrast this to a modern-day AR-15 assault rifle. It has a magazine capacity of thirty rounds. A range of 550 meters and can fire 45 effective rounds within a single minute. Trying to compare these is like trying to compare apples and oranges. Or, more accurately, like comparing TNT and a nuclear warhead.