Gun Control "Debate" at Harvard

This is pretty much what you'd expect of a debate on Gun Control coming out of Harvard. The topic relates to "Progressive Gun Control" coming back into the political landscape. I read the article and I still don't know which of these debaters was the one supporting gun rights. [h/t Of Arms and the Law]

Cornell began by describing the high cost - in both dollars and lives - of gun violence in America, noting that approximately 30,000 Americans die each year as a result of gun violence and that direct medical costs alone constitute several billion dollars of spending per year. At the same time, he acknowledged that a platform based on eradicating guns entirely would be an unrealistic way to address the problem. According to Cornell, 35% to 40% of households in this country own at least one gun and gun ownership is too historically embedded in our society to make a confiscation plan realistically viable.

At the same time, Cornell expressed his belief that progressives have been ignoring the gun control issue for too long and that they need to find a way to develop and express a position on the issue that demonstrates a middle ground.

"There is a way of making gun control an issue that is not poison to the left," Cornell stated. "You can be for gun regulation without actually wanting to take everyone's guns away."

The article is, obviously, not very thorough. I wonder if Cornell, who at first glance, would appear to support second amendment rights, made any statements regarding defensive use of guns and a guestimate on the amount of blood and treasure saved by their use. You can indeed be for gun regulations without being for abolition of guns, but due to parties like the Bradey bunch using regulations as the means to incrementally outlaw all guns, I doubt if any honest sponsor of such regulations won't be tarred with their brush.

Tushnet, on the other hand, showed less optimism about the possibility of making progress on the gun control issue and expressed concern that "making a big deal about it" would be a fruitless use of time and energy.

"Given the prevalence of guns in society, and the cultural resonance that gun ownership has in substantial segments of society, there is no politically achievable gun policy that is going to have any significant effect one way or the other on gun violence, which means it's just wasted effort."

At least Tushnet is realistic.

In addressing the question of whether it is possible for progressives to develop credibility on the gun control issue and how the culture wars might be influencing the debate, Tushnet advanced the theory that forms the thesis of his upcoming book on the topic.

"The gun control issue is as difficult as it is because it has become a location for the culture war battles," Tushnet said. "We need a politician who can detach issues from the larger culture war issues, like [Bill] Clinton did with welfare reform…but gun control might not be the most important [issue] to detach right now."

Yeah, right. Comparing gun control to welfare reform is nearly identical to posturing abortion rights to welfare reform. Welfare reform hadn't the partisan divide that guns and abortion have, not to mention the rather well funded citizens action groups that actively work in the political theater to support their views. Welfare reform was a softball compared to the gun control issue. Hell, Social Security reform would be a softball.

I also wonder exactly what is meant by "progressive." I'm thinking they are referring to a liberal agenda, though they don't really point to that directly.

"We can't say nothing, and we can't say, 'Yeah, we love the 2nd Amendment,'" said Cornell. "But we have to come up with something to say about it...we need to defend the vision of a well-regulated society, with checks and balances, and show people that government is not inherently evil."

"Well regulated society?" What in the hell is that? Where is that in the constitution or any of the documents creating this country. In fact, I'd say that idea is as anti-American as you can get. The US is about having the freedom to do as you will (within reason of course). Well regulated strikes me as what the Soviets were trying to establish.

I had originally read the article assuming that one of the debaters would be a second amendment supporter. Obviously, neither of them is. Cornell may run a department named "Second Amendment Research Center" but he most certainly isn't related to gun rights at all. I suppose the debate that was offered mainly centered on whether the left should wade out of the fever swamp on this issue and actually take a stand. Obviously they shouldn't, since that doesn't get them elected, not to mention that it's not supported by most Americans.