1. THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE

No one could dispute that guns are dangerous objects with the potential to cause damage to property, and injury and death to animals and humans. It is why most people fear them, yet it is also the reason why others are attracted to guns. Most guns were designed specifically for killing, to be used by the military and law enforcement agencies. In the wrong hands they are the tools of crime and terror. A civil society controls dangerous objects in the interests of public safety. Guns should not be an exception, yet the issue of whether and to what extent guns should be controlled is extremely contentious.

At the heart of the gun control debate is the question of where the balance should lie between the rights of the general public to be safe from gun violence and the privilege of gun enthusiasts to own and use weapons. No civilised society would deny its citizens the right to be safe, but opinions on the ‘rights’ of gun owners can be poles apart and are viewed very differently from one country to the next. In most developed countries gun ‘rights’ are restricted and are dependent on factors such as proof of the necessity to own guns (for sport, hunting, vermin control and, more rarely, for self defence) and a person’s fitness (mental, emotional) to use them.

Many gun enthusiasts contend that their rights are more fundamental than this. In the United States, for example, members of the gun lobby, and even some outside it, believe that an unconditional right for civilians to own guns is enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The matter is still fiercely debated and a definitive legal judgmental has yet to be provided. The constitutions of most other countries, however, make no reference to a “right to bear arms”.

Assuming that there is no absolute right to own a gun, (and gun control advocates would argue that there is no moral or practical justification for this), the gun control debate hinges on the extent to which public safety is compromised by gun ownership. Gun owners put their faith in screening procedures that would eliminate unsuitable, and therefore unsafe applicants for firearm licences – in their view all legal gun owners could then be regarded as trustworthy and competent to own even the most dangerous weapons without risk to the public.

Gun control advocates argue that this is unrealistic and dangerous - no screening procedure can reliably predict the present, let alone the future behaviour of an applicant, an opinion supported by medical and psychiatric experts. This was apparent in Britain at the time of the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, and in many other instances when licensed gun owners turned their guns on innocent victims.

Even if fitness were guaranteed, the question then arises as to which particular guns can be entrusted to those who wish to shoot. Gun enthusiasts would probably say ‘any gun’. The gun control view is that the most dangerous guns (based on how easily concealable the gun is, its rapidity of fire, power and calibre) should be prohibited. However, since all guns are potentially dangerous ownership should not be permitted unless it is essential.