2008 Woodie Awards
Editorial
Ban on fully automatic guns needs more consideration
Issue date: 4/23/07 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
There has always been a debate in this country about the right to bear arms and exactly what the Second Amendment means.
This perennial discussion has bloomed once again in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, and has demanded we determine where we stand on the issue. This editorial is meant to discuss only this, and we will not get into whether the presence or absence of laws would have had an effect on the tragedy.
Throughout the recent national debate, there appears to be two polarized views of gun control, neither of which truly grasps the role guns play in this country.
On the one hand is the push to remove all regulations from gun control, basically allowing the purchase of any manner of firearms within reason (i.e. no rocket launchers).
This argument states the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms, including fully automatic assault weapons.
Our stance is that this argument does not make sense. There is no need for someone to own an assault weapon, as it is a firearm inherently designed to shoot either lots of things at once or one thing many times.
Those who claim these guns are used for hunting need to re-examine their sportsman abilities. Shooting a deer can, and should, be done with a single shot, as it is the most ethical treatment of the game.
For personal protection, fully automatic weapons are overkill. The same can, and should, be accomplished with a semi-automatic firearm.
The other side of the gun issue is a total ban on firearms. This conflicts with this editorial board's belief that the Second Amendment allows citizens to own firearms.
If there is a total ban on guns, the Second Amendment must therefore then be dissolved. No item on the Bill of Rights should ever be overturned.
The most sensible position in this debate is to ban fully automatic firearms, but keep the rest. Other forms of guns are acceptable for sport, but automatic guns are by design of lethal mentality.
This perennial discussion has bloomed once again in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, and has demanded we determine where we stand on the issue. This editorial is meant to discuss only this, and we will not get into whether the presence or absence of laws would have had an effect on the tragedy.
Throughout the recent national debate, there appears to be two polarized views of gun control, neither of which truly grasps the role guns play in this country.
On the one hand is the push to remove all regulations from gun control, basically allowing the purchase of any manner of firearms within reason (i.e. no rocket launchers).
This argument states the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms, including fully automatic assault weapons.
Our stance is that this argument does not make sense. There is no need for someone to own an assault weapon, as it is a firearm inherently designed to shoot either lots of things at once or one thing many times.
Those who claim these guns are used for hunting need to re-examine their sportsman abilities. Shooting a deer can, and should, be done with a single shot, as it is the most ethical treatment of the game.
For personal protection, fully automatic weapons are overkill. The same can, and should, be accomplished with a semi-automatic firearm.
The other side of the gun issue is a total ban on firearms. This conflicts with this editorial board's belief that the Second Amendment allows citizens to own firearms.
If there is a total ban on guns, the Second Amendment must therefore then be dissolved. No item on the Bill of Rights should ever be overturned.
The most sensible position in this debate is to ban fully automatic firearms, but keep the rest. Other forms of guns are acceptable for sport, but automatic guns are by design of lethal mentality.