Article Review
Natalie Wolchover in her article devoted to the issue of gun control develops her point through the dialogue prism. It means that the article does not itself support certain point of view, but insists on the need for the dialogue between two sides to reach the common ground. Ms. Wolchover bears in mind the tough situation in terms of the strong opposition to the gun control issues and, thus, supports the dialogue arguments. The author refers to the most-known scholars in the area of constitutional law from Harvard, who has a similar way of argumentation: firstly, the dialogue, then, the decision.
The article has rationale for both positions: whereas people, according to the Constitution, are entitled to protect themselves using guns, they shall be protected from this unlimited freedom, when they can be killed watching movies or attending classrooms. As to the strongest arguments, the author relies on the historic context and the gun control support in the U.S. as well as the on the consequences of unlimited right to bear arms. Of course, a number of instances of such the outcomes could be also mentioned to make the thesis stronger; however, the author does not mention them. All in all, the article is another try to initiate the dialogue within the U.S. aimed at rational regulation of gun possession and prevention of serious consequences thereof.
References
Wolchover, N. (July 2012). Why Gun Control Is So Contentious in the US. Live Science.
Retrieved February 3, 2017, from http://www.livescience.com/21741-gun-control-second-amendment.html
Why Gun Control is So Contentious in the U.S.?
Should gun control really be so controversial? (The Research Question)
"There are people who want to own guns for recreational or self-defense purposes, and on the other side, I don't think anyone wants to see someone walk into a crowded movie theater and kill people," said Art Markman, professor of psychology at the University of Texas. The goal is obvious: protect the former while minimizing the chance of the latter. (The Thesis: the gun control shall be, as it bears positive outcomes for both parties)
But history seems to have brought us to a point where the two considerations cannot be reconciled. Here's how it happened. (Claim: nowadays people cannot agree with the rational way out to deal with the gun situation)
In the United States' early years, gun control had strong support, said Mark Tushnet, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University. Within decades of the adoption of the Bill of Rights — the document whose Second Amendment confers the "right to bear arms" as part of the people's right to form well-regulated militias — laws banning concealed weapons were passed in many states (especially in the South, where more people owned guns). When these laws were challenged, courts upheld the bans as constitutional (Argument: people historically supported gun control) The NRA, founded in 1871 as a sporting and hunting association, supported most gun control regulation for its first 100 years (Evidence: main lobbyist of guns and oppose of gun control had the adverse aim historically)
Then, in the 1950s and 1960s, "the increasing urbanization of the country made gun possession a matter of concern for a lot of people in the cities," whereas previously it was of concern primarily in rural areas where people hunted, Tushnet told LiveScience. (Evidence: hereinafter the first historical reasons why the gun control shall be established)
When urban gun violence reached a fever pitch with the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy in 1968, members of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) felt they had to act. [With Weaker Laws, More Guns Are Being Trafficked to Criminals]
"The 1968 Gun Control Act placed an extensive system of federal gun control, for the first time, on ordinary weapons. This marked a fairly large expansion of the federal involvement in gun control," Tushnet said. For the most part, NRA leaders supported the act (Argument: certain steps were once made)
But in 1970, a Democratic senator who had introduced that year's Firearms Registration and Licensing Act lost his re-election bid in Maryland, largely because many country folks saw the bill as an infringement on their rights, according to an account of the incident in The New Yorker. Historians view this as a critical moment: Conservative members of the NRA's leadership saw that gun rights could win elections, and they orchestrated a shift in the organization's stance.
"There was a bureaucratic coup d'etat within the NRA," Tushnet explained. "Washington insiders took the organization over from the more established gun enthusiasts who ran it, and converted it from an organization that was involved in supporting gun-related sporting activities into a Washington lobbying organization." (Evidence: how the opposition was mechanically created)
They changed the motto from "Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation," to "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed." Ever since, the NRA has argued that the Second Amendment concerns individual gun ownership, rather than people's right to form armed militias for their common defense, as constitutional law scholars believe the Second Amendment intended. [Why Is the Constitution so Difficult to Interpret?]
The political maneuver worked because it occurred during what Tushnet calls the "rights revolution" of the middle 20th century.. "The NRA was able to take advantage of the 'rights revolution', which had made thinking about things that people cared about in terms of constitutionally protected rights much more prominent in our culture," he said.
The NRA began backing candidates who opposed gun regulations, always in the name of the Second Amendment, and gun control became a partisan issue. (Argument: support of unlimited gun possession is the substitution of terms, as is shown as the protection of the Constitution, whereas, in fact, it has political nature)
Lack of dialogue
What were political divisions during the 1970s have become political polarizations today. One can blame the Internet.
Markman said, "It's no fun to confront someone who believes something different than you do. Fifty years ago, when there were three TV networks and a local newspaper, you had no choice but to confront things that were unpleasant because you had few options."
Regularly interacting with people whose views oppose one's own has a moderating effect, Markman explained. "When you have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you, your opinions become more similar, just because you have to take their perspective for a moment in order to understand what they're saying."
Today, thanks to cable TV and the Internet, one can easily avoid the unpleasant but valuable experience of disagreeing with people. "I can choose my TV news network on the basis of my beliefs. I can subscribe to email lists, websites, chat groups full of people whose opinions are quite similar to my own," he said.
Yelling into echo chambers about issues such as gun control, instead of engaging in conversations with those who disagree, has led each of us to spin toward extreme views, Markman said (Evidence: how the polarization occurs)
"There may very well be some way of allowing people to have guns for personal protection or sports purposes, while at the same time protecting people who just want to see a movie," he continued. "These are not easy problems to solve, but the fact is there are valid arguments on both sides of many issues. The best solution to most problems requires some discussion." (Conclusion)
