A question was raised in last week’s paper about the General Assembly Democrats’ seriousness in trying to curb gun violence. That seemed like a silly question to me. Of course, Democrats want to limit gun violence – doesn’t everyone? How to do it while retaining individual rights is instead the real issue, with the political parties holding sharply different points of view. The Democrat’s’ position has pointed to the exceptionally large incidence of gun violence in the United States being linked to the exceptionally high number of guns (particularly high-powered guns) in circulation. We lead the developed world in both gun violence and gun prevalence. The Republican position largely disagrees, saying that having guns increases personal safety and needs to be unconditionally supported as a Constitutional right. They also point to interventions such as increasing penalties for gun violence, although data from other places show that this is not an effective deterrent.
Last year’s election resulted in Virginia having a strong Democratic majority, so not surprising was legislation intended to reduce gun violence by making military or assault style guns less available. This position focused on retaining individual rights to gun ownership for personal protection, while reducing the availability of assault style weapons often used in mass shootings. Simply inaccurate are claims that this gun legislation is intended to take away an individual’s right to own a gun. In fact, our governor has stated her support for gun ownership and recognizes it as a constitutional right. She personally carried a firearm in her job as a federal agent. But – that does not mean supporting individuals having assault style weapons capable of mass shootings that go far beyond what is needed for personal protection. An inherent problem though in controlling assault style weapons has been defining exactly what one is. The new law solves that problem – the comprehensive definition is available at: https://legiscan.com/VA/text/SB749/id/3383900. It clears things up considerably.
Of course, those who now own assault style weapons want to keep them. The new law doesn’t make anyone give them back – it only applies to getting new guns. I think this is a good example of how our legislators tried to find a compromise between not imposing any gun restrictions, and curbing gun violence linked to the massive number of powerful guns now in circulation. Some will argue that the definition of assault style weapons is too restrictive – for example that limiting magazines to no more than 15 rounds is unreasonable or arbitrary. Others will counter that surely 15 rounds are plenty to provide personal protection. Are more than 15 rounds needed to fend off a home invader? If that is not enough – how about 20 rounds? When is enough, enough? At the extremes there is little controversy – few will want to legalize grenades to toss at the bad guys. But the “grey zone” – separating reasonable personal protection from unreasonable ability for mass killings, is wide. And many people want to keep their assault style weapons simply because they are fun to shoot!
This new legislation provides a clear definition of assault weapons and tries to find an appropriate balance to better the lives of Virginians. I hope that many simply don’t argue and get angry that “government” is trying to take their guns away – that is simply not happening. I also expect that few will argue that we should take all guns away – that is not the will of many people. This new legislation represents the majority of Virginians and imposes rather modest new rules. Let’s give it a chance.
