I do not understand the politicization of the nation’s controversy over guns. Some aspects of the argument fall along typical party lines, I suppose. Conservatives favor the “original intent” interpretation of the Second Amendment and limited governmental intervention in the freedom to purchase and own weapons. Liberals classically support governmental interference in individual freedoms. So on that level, the political debate has context. However, it seems to me that arguments surrounding the practical value/menace of guns ought to be apolitical.

A recent New York Times headline caught my attention: “Fearing Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws.”  My hackles went up immediately, and I plunged into the article and prepared myself to be outraged at Obama’s anti-gun agenda.  Muttering direly, I skimmed the piece and was surprised to find my preconceived notions countered by the substance of the article. Mr. Obama, to the chagrin of gun control advocates, has “been largely silent on [gun control],” and actually signed bills last year “allowing guns to be carried in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak trains.”

The Times observes a veritable plethora of advancements for gun rights supporters. The Virginia General Assembly passed a bill allowing concealed weapons to be carried in alcohol-serving bars and restaurants. Lawmakers in Tennessee and Montana have voted to exempt their states from federal regulation of guns and ammunition produced and used within the state.

Contemplating this article, I realized that I had fallen into the trap of assuming that a Democrat, by virtue of his political alignment, must have an active anti-gun agenda. This kind of assumption is akin to the typical classification of Republicans as gun-waving, homosexual-hating, Christian bigots. The focus of the political divide over gun rights seems to hover over the constitutionality of “keeping and bearing” arms. Does the phrasing of the Second Amendment imply individual gun rights, or the right of a state to maintain a militia (which would render the Second Amendment virtually irrelevant, given that the militia system is no longer in place)? After reading the New York Times article, I decided to put this question aside and reassess my position on guns independent of the standard constitutional interpretation by conservatives. A combination of common sense and statistical data has led me to the conclusion that excessive gun control is unhelpful and unwise – even without calling its constitutionality into question.

I am in favor of gun registration. It is prudent to be cognizant of gun ownership and to complete background checks of individuals purchasing the weapons. Beyond basic precautionary regulations, however, anti-gun measures make little sense. Legal ownership of guns is a key factor in crime prevention. Guns serve as both crime deterrents and instruments of self-defense. States that have experienced the most marked increases in gun ownership have also witnessed the most significant decreases in violent crimes. Permitting adults who clear a background check to carry concealed weapons has reduced murder and crime rates significantly in the states that pass concealed carry laws.  One study reviewing crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992 found that states with concealed carry legislation experienced decreases in murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery. Imagine yourself to be a gun-toting criminal. You would think twice about attacking someone if it were possible that the intended victim packed a handgun.

Additionally, in 2004, 2.5 million citizens used guns in self-defense, and in 92 percent of these incidents, the citizen under attack did not find it necessary to wound or kill his/her assailant. Brandishing the weapon or firing a warning shot was sufficient in the overwhelming majority of these occurrences. Data reveals that nations featuring high gun-ownership rates such as Switzerland, New Zealand and Israel face extremely low crime rates, another indication that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens reduce criminal activity.

Guns can certainly be horribly misused.  The problem with gun control is that it impacts the honest, respectable members of society, and fails to prevent the illegal acquisition of weapons. Passing anti-gun legislation will only serve to eliminate guns from the homes of citizens into whose hands we should entrust the guns in the first place. The criminal component of society will continue to find weapons as it always has: in a criminal manner.

To end with an intriguing thought: as students, we are obviously horrified at the travesty of recent school shootings. What if, among the shooter’s victims, there had been one armed, trained student? Guns should not be taken lightly, but if we break free from the political debate and consider their value to social order, perhaps we can actually succeed in making society safer.

Erica Morgan wants you to join her at the shooting range. Have a comment?  Send it to [email protected].