By Max Price | Contributor
In recent election cycles, gun control has become an increasingly hot issue. Both sides rally their bases with promises to pass or prevent gun control legislation. Both sides vilify the other based on their positions. Similarly, both sides simplify the issue to the point of uselessness. Any attempt at reform is a ban on all guns, and any question about reform is purely the result of NRA-based corruption. I believe that there are still some facts on which we all can (or should) agree.
First, we must consider guns in the abstract. Guns are technology, and any good Taylor student will tell you technology is never neutral. So where do guns fall on the spectrum? At their simplest, guns are created for destruction. With this in mind, our culture's celebration of firearms seems absurd. Destruction may be necessary at times, but celebration hardly seems an appropriate response.
I must recognize that there are limited instances in which guns do contribute to flourishing. My brother is passionate about guns in the same way that many of us are passionate about our course of study. It would be wrong to limit that passion, though it would be unwise to pretend as though this is the motivation of all (or even most) gun owners.
Second, we must understand the culture surrounding guns in America. No single item in our country is so thoughtlessly lauded. Many purchase guns due to their love for them. Many more purchase guns out of fear: fear that guns will be banned altogether, or fear of the unknown from which they feel a gun may protect them. These motivations are notable because rational arguments will never overcome such strong emotions. Having a gun in the home is dangerous, but statistics about this will not overcome fear of a robbery that a security system might better prevent.
With this in mind, what policy goals and policy steps can or should we all agree on? First and foremost, fewer guns will result in fewer deaths and injuries. Regardless of the "criminals will just break the laws" nonsense, if there are fewer guns, there will be fewer opportunities for their use by all. Fewer accidental deaths and suicides will result if fewer families keep guns in their homes. Fewer crimes of passion will be committed if a gun is not readily available. Perhaps the decreased supply (and thus raised price) will even prevent a few hardened criminals from affording guns at all.
Specifics on lowering the supply of guns seem to be the problem. Some reforms are common sense (i.e. "No Fly, No Buy"). There may be concerns on specifics of implementation, but the fact that such legislation has not been passed is ludicrous. Beyond that, gun buyback programs that raise the cost of casual gun ownership would likely be effective in reducing the supply of guns. These programs would protect those who truly need weapons (i.e. farmers), as well as true gun enthusiasts.
No single policy will eradicate mass shootings or gun deaths, but a reduced gun supply will surely go a long way toward lowering the frequency of these incidents. In the current political climate, bans and restrictions are automatic non-starters. Perhaps this voluntary approach will allow progress to continue until America finds a more creative outlet than gun obsession.
