A Liberal in Favor of Gun Rights: How we can still reduce gun crimes.

I am in favor of gun rights.

Have I lost your support yet? Are you leaving the article? Or do you want to hear me out?

Hey, good! Glad to hear that you're willing to keep reading. Here's why I support gun rights:

* I believe all citizens have the right to arm themselves for self-protection. Even if we outlawed guns, they would still exist in the hands of muggers and criminals, and we would be removing
* Looking at the origin of the right to bear arms, it was our way of saying "Hey, you shouldn't disarm your people. We should have the right to rebel if it comes to it, without it being a one-sided fight." To quote V for Vendetta (great movie, by the way), "People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people."

I agree that we should not be prevented from having a standing militia, and should not be disempowered or disarmed while our government still has this sort of weaponry.

All that being said, I strongly believe that we need some more restrictions on who we hand guns to. I believe we should have the right to bear arms -- but not to hand them out like candy at a parade. That's basically what we're doing right now, and it's harmful.

The first thing is that we need to be more strict on what types of crimes disqualify someone from owning a firearm. Though the exact crimes that restrict ownership or use of firearms varies from state to state, the general list remains basically the same. Here's a summary:

* If you've been convicted of: murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter that involved reckless use of a firearm, possession of a firearm on school property, aggravated assault (that is, assault with a weapon), stalking, kidnapping, rape, sexual assault, arson, robbery, or burglary.
* A person can appeal for ownership of a firearm after they've been out of prison for seven to ten years (generally speaking, depending on the state).

Here's why that needs to change:

* Of those convicted of felonies involving firearms, 78% have previous criminal or arrest records.
* Of those convicted of felonies involving firearms, only 28% are previous felons.
* In other words, about 50% of these felons have had offenses previously that did not disqualify them from owning a firearm.
* In an even simpler generalization, 50% of these violent crimes could have been prevented if anyone with a criminal record were not allowed to own or use firearms.
* All these stats are according to a federal report which covered percentages from 1977 to 1991 -- the figures may have changed somewhat, but with a 24 year sample period, I'm pretty confident in the stats.

So, that's point #1. We should restrict firearms from anyone with an arrest record. I'm all for allowing appeals, and I think that for many things, an appeal after seven to ten years would be completely reasonable. There are certain things for which I do feel that appeals should not be allowed. Namely, prior violent crimes involving firearms, prior cases of rape or sexual assault, prior cases of manslaughter or murder, or prior cases of theft/robbery/burglary/mugging involving a firearm.

Here's point #2. We should mandate a psychological evaluation by a court psychologist prior to owning firearms. There are plenty of people who have not yet committed any violent crimes who are not sane enough (in my book) to own firearms. I don't want criminals walking around with guns, but if we can prevent those with a high likelihood of committing crimes from having guns, that would definitely be best.

What should we rule out? Who can't have a firearm? Well, those with major anger issues, those with major psychological issues that may prevent them from having the necessary stability to own a firearm (post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, D.I.D., extreme paranoia, to name a few).

The individual getting the firearm (or rather, at this point, the license to own a firearm) would pay for the court psychologist. This would reduce the number of people who doubt their own psychological stability who would apply (why pay if you think you're not going to be approved?) and would create some good government jobs for psychologists. It would also reduce the number of firearms that are present overall, which I view as a positive thing (less opportunity for stolen guns).

Point #3 is that we need to have Stricter enforcement on those who should not legally own firearms. Right now it's a class 3 misdemeanor in most states -- not lenient, but not necessarily strict. It should be a felony offense. Anything less would allow people to feel like they can "risk it" to own a firearm when they shouldn't have the legal right to.

Now here's my point #4. Assault rifles and automatic weapons. Really? Is that necessary? As long as we're doing that, shouldn't we all be allowed to own bombs and other items that can take down large groups of people at once? As far as I'm concerned, Assault Rifles, Automatic Weapons, and other extreme firearms should only be owned by police and military officials, and only used with special authorization.

So, that's what I feel needs to change about our system and our approach to firearms. But again, I am definitely pro gun-rights. I welcome comments, disputes, or similar -- from my liberal and conservative followers alike.

I am the Utah Liberal.
My political commentary, news and updates, and more can be found at my awesome liberal site. I look forward to seeing you there!