There was a gunfight at Sandra Day O’Connor Law School on Nov. 15, though likely not the kind you’re picturing. Adam Winkler, respected attorney and Professor of Law at UCLA, gave a lecture centered on his new book “Gun Fight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” followed by a question and answer session moderated by Alan Korwin, the owner of the largest publisher of gun law books.
The lecture included a brief history of gun control in America, citing early laws that required certain males to purchase rifles and participate in musters and firearm registration, the NRA advocacy of banning civilians from owning automatic weapons and showing how ineffective certain aspects of gun control have been over time. Winkler also provided evidence proving the Second Amendment does protect individual rights.
Winkler described the two extreme sides in the gun control debate. “Gun Grabbers,” as Winkler calls them, are a bit dramatic and illogical in their quest to outlaw firearms altogether and also admit that the laws they institute do little to reduce gun violence.
“Gun Nuts” are also often dramatic and illogical in their insistence that the Second Amendment implies unrestricted ownership of any firearm and resists any governmental control.
While “Gun Grabbers” argue that guns are the problem, it’s interesting to note that Washington D.C. Councilman Marion Barry, in advocating the firearm ban of 1976, was quoted in Winkler’s book article as saying the ban wouldn’t stop the devastating crime in his city.
Statistics from the FBI indicate that to be true, with crime rates rising yearly until revitalization efforts in the '90s.
If guns really are the problem, rather than the people operating them or enforcement of codified moral law, it would cause one to wonder why, according to data from Ohio State’s Criminal Justice Research Center, the crime rates in early American history were low at a time when the government required many men to arm themselves, and why crime rates are higher now when fewer households own firearms.
Statistics from the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2004 actually indicate that an increase in gun control legislation had no influence on the declination of crime in the '90s, but rather gave credit to rise in police numbers, increasing prison population, decreasing recidivism rates, and a receding crack epidemic.
While the facts do not support the elimination of firearms totally, Winkler provides logical reasoning and evidentiary support for laws not allowing most citizens to own machine guns, or keeping felons or the mentally ill from owning firearms.
Mental soundness is certainly an important part of exercising rights, and perhaps laws need to be reformed to prevent mentally troubled people like Jared Lee Loughner from legally obtaining firearms, but the keyword seems to be “legally.”
Winkler’s lecture, and what I’ve read of his book thus far, tried to provide both sides with equal ammunition against their opposition, but the facts seem to bolster the “Gun Nuts” side far more than the “Gun Grabbers." Instead of focusing on firearms, we really should focus on crime prosecution.
Reach the columnist at page.gerrick@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
