VIEWPOINT: More reason, less rhetoric on gun control

EAST GRAND FORKS -- The gun control debate has everyone's blood boiling. On one side, some contend that America needs sweeping gun controls to combat the atrocities of Newtown, Mass., Aurora, Colo., and Virginia Tech University, to name a few.

On the other side, some are unwilling to compromise on anything for fear of weakening the Second Amendment.

Let's see if we can make sense of it all.

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do not own a gun and have not fired one in more than a decade.

I believe that the Second Amendment is a relic of an era long past. Thus, my personal preference would be for an extremely narrow reading of the amendment or a full repeal.

But I respect other views on this matter, especially in the context of self defense and sporting use of guns.

I say this because Jay Johnson felt the need to write in about it ("Foes of Second Amendment go on to worship 14th," Page A4, April 26).

Johnson states, "Gun ban proponents will continue to seek ways to cut into the clear, and narrow, wording of the Second Amendment." He does not quote the amendment, nor does he explain what is particularly narrow or clear about it. Allow me: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

First, one could easily see this "right" as being narrowly tailored to militia purposes, and that's not the sense that Johnson would like it to be. But thankfully for Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 held that the right is not limited solely to militia purposes.

Of course, the court did go on to state that "like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Therefore, the Second Amendment clearly does not bar the government from regulating guns.

Now, let's look at background checks addressed in the Manchin-Toomey proposal that recently failed in the U.S. Senate.

Phillip Johnston says the proposal would have required driving 30 miles to a dealer to run a background check on a family member in order to give him or her a gift ("N.D. senators heeded N.D. constituents' views," Page A4, April 25).

That's incorrect. The proposal specifically states that gifts and sales between family members would be exempt. The amendment also would have exempted sales between friends as long as the sale was not advertised.

The proposal also would have expanded background checks so that mental health information would be more readily accessible to law enforcement. And it would have closed gun-show and online sales loopholes.

But do background checks work?

Let's be clear: Even with the most stringent background checks in place, some troubled individuals will still get their hands on guns. But that should not stop us from strengthening background checks anyway. Many Americans drive without a license, but that does not stop the government from issuing the documents, keeping track of who has a valid license, keeping car registration information, requiring that drivers pass driving tests and issuing fines for noncompliance.

Guns should be approached the same way.

Yes, it's a minor burden on lawful gun-owners to submit to background checks, register their firearms, be subject to a short waiting period and so on. But owning something as potentially dangerous as a gun should come with certain responsibilities.

These safeguards won't prevent criminals and dangerous individuals from getting weapons. But they can make it harder to do so, and at the expense of only a small inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners. That's a small price to pay.

With more than 30,000 gun-related deaths (including suicides) in 2010, gun violence is a major issue. Guns are only part of the problem, but our "guns do not kill people, people kill people" attitude toward gun control clearly is not working.

It is time to do what we can to limit the effect of guns and bring down the level of gun violence.

Olsen is a student at the UND School of Law.