Antony Davies & James Harrigan: Balancing gun rights, preventing harm |
Antony Davies & James Harrigan, Columnist

Antony Davies & James Harrigan: Balancing gun rights, preventing harm

Antony Davies and James Harrigan

Presidential hopeful Andrew Yang broke down in tears last week while discussing gun violence at a town hall in Iowa. Elizabeth Warren announced that she intends to reduce gun violence in this country by 80%. Her plan includes background checks (these are already required), revoking gun licenses for gun dealers who break the law (this is already the law), and investigating the NRA (not sure what that’s supposed to do). As the U.S. gun homicide rate has fallen by 50% since 1993, and the non-fatal gun crime rate has fallen by more than 80%, Warren’s actual plan may simply be to jump in front of a parade that’s already well underway.

Closer to home, Gov. Tom Wolf wants to mandate universal background checks on all gun purchases. Firearms dealers are already required to perform background checks. In Pennsylvania, private sales of handguns must go through a firearms dealer, and so are also subject to background checks. “Universal” sounds like a sweeping change, but what Wolf really means is that the state should require background checks for private sales of long arms, as that’s the only type of gun sale for which background checks aren’t already required.

Yang, Wolf and Warren are using gun violence as a means of signaling to voters that their hearts are in the right place. But none of this, from shedding tears to investigating the NRA, is more than window dressing. Even one gun death should be cause for concern, and those who are more interested in meaningful change than in photo-ops should do two things.

The first is to communicate clearly. Almost every discussion of gun control screeches to a halt when someone says “assault weapon” or confuses “semi-automatic” with “machine gun.” Pro-control people believe that pro-gun people deliberately obfuscate the conversation by splitting hairs over esoteric definitions. Calling a “magazine” a “clip” doesn’t change the fact that the device once held a bullet (“round”) that killed someone. We should be focusing on the killing, not the nomenclature. Conversely, pro-gun people believe that pro-control people deliberately use vague terminology so they can expand their proposed ban to all guns everywhere.

But, words are the building blocks of laws. If laws are to achieve what we intend them to achieve, it’s necessary that we get the words right. And here, politicians and the media bear much of the blame. To inflame passions, they blithely repeat terms like “assault weapon,” knowing that the term has no clear meaning. If pro-control people hope to get any support from pro-gun people on reasonable gun laws, the first step lies in getting the terminology right so we know what we’re talking about. It’s not that hard. Ten minutes with Google should suffice.

The second is to assume good will. There are whack-jobs on the left who want to ban all guns, and there are whack-jobs on the right who want everyone to open carry. Though they get the lion’s share of the press, they are thankfully few in number. The large majority of both pro-control and pro-gun voters are reasonable people. Each side needs to approach the other not as adversaries but as partners in hashing out how we can balance people’s rights to defend themselves with the need to prevent people from harming others.

Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University. James Harrigan is managing director of the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom at the University of Arizona. They host the weekly podcast, Words and Numbers.

Categories: Opinion
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.