Provocative titles such as “Is Ashcroft a Hypocrite” and “Osama Get Your Gun”, drew about 45 students to Kresge Hall Monday night for a debate on post-Sept. 11 gun control issues, from background checks on gun buyers to terrorists’ ability to obtain weapons.
Lax gun laws endanger Americans by making it easier for terrorists to obtain firearms, said Scott Medlock, president of Campus Alliance to End Gun Violence.
“Al-Qaida tells its members to come to the United States and purchase their weapons here,” said Medlock, a Weinberg senior.
But Tom Sherman, former president of College Republicans, said strict gun laws could actually make America more vulnerable to terrorists. He referred to one of the Nazis’ first actions to weaken Jewish resistance – stripping Jews of their right to carry firearms.
“I would feel safer if you owned a gun,” said Sherman, a Weinberg junior.
College Libertarians treasurer Jeff Paulsen agreed with Sherman that Sept. 11 does not change gun control issues, adding that guns will still fall into the wrong hands regardless of how strict the laws are.
“(Today’s) laws aren’t getting the job done,” said Paulsen, a Weinberg junior. “Stricter laws aren’t going to get the job done either.”
College Democrats member Latonya Starks focused more on how the nation’s political climate after Sept. 11 has helped weaken the gun control lobby.
“It’s not moral to use a time of crisis like this to further your own political goals,” said Starks, a Speech sophomore, referring to the allocation of wartime powers to President Bush, the approval of secret military tribunals for suspected terrorists and alleged racial profiling during the investigation into terrorism.
Government officials are using the Sept. 11 political climate and their increased power to further their own agendas – catering to the gun lobby in Attorney General John Ashcroft’s case, Starks said.
Ashcroft is proposing to make an individual’s gun-buying records available for only one day in a national database, down from the 90 days now required by the Brady Law.
Keeping the 90-day requirement and closing the “gun show loophole,” which allows individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without background checks, would curb terrorist acquisition of guns, Medlock said. People should be able to purchase only one gun per month, he added, to limit the possibility of them distributing many guns to others who may not be able to purchase them on their own.
But Paulsen said he finds fault with gun control laws that assume criminality by subjecting everyone to a background check, violating the Constitution’s provision that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
“We’re harassing our law-abiding citizens,” he said.
Still, all four panelists agreed that while law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase guns, a background check of some kind is beneficial.
Despite the diverse group of panelists, their views on these issues seemed similar, Weinberg freshman Jason Konik said.
“I didn’t see that there was any disagreement,” Konik said.
