Commentary: Both sides of gun debate make valid arguments

John Krull, publisher, TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – Maybe there is common ground in the national debate over guns.

Commentary button in JPG – no shadowGuy Relford and Steve Dunlop are discussing guns, gun violence and gun rights.

Relford, an attorney who specializes in Second Amendment issues, and Dunlop, president of Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence, talk on the air during a live broadcast of the radio program I host.

The news hook for the show is the arrival of 70,000 gun devotees in Indianapolis for the National Rifle Association’s national convention. The NRA’s event advertising promises that it will celebrate guns and gear. The convention’s culmination will be a huge “Stand and Fight” rally in Lucas Oil Stadium that will feature appearances by Iran-Contra figure Oliver North and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Stand and fight?

Sounds pretty bellicose.

There are signs, though, that the NRA is softening some of its more combative stances.

For years, the NRA staked out a position that people alleged to have committed domestic abuse shouldn’t have to give up their firearms when they’re served with protective orders. The NRA said the alleged abusers should only have to give up their guns after a conviction.

In several states, though, the NRA has done an about-face. Their lobbyists have accepted changes in state laws that make the protective order the trigger for surrendering firearms.

Critics say the NRA has done so as part of an attempt to reach out to women as potential members.

Maybe, but it’s also possible NRA members realize the change is one that makes sense and will prevent senseless tragedy.

Inside the studio, for much of the conversation, Relford and Dunlop politely re-enact the typical debate between gun rights and gun control advocates. Both present numbers that support their positions. Both dismiss, again politely, statistics that undercut their positions as “discredited.”

But, then, toward the end of the discussion, things get more interesting.

A listener sends an email saying that gun control advocates seem to focus much of their effort on restricting gun use and ownership rather than promoting safe and responsible gun ownership and use. The listener says the most effective gun safety courses are the ones the NRA runs.

Dunlop, to a degree, agrees. He says more gun education and training would be a good idea. In fact, he argues, that many of the responsible gun ownership practices the NRA endorses ought to be written into law.

In quick succession, a listener named Tim sends an email Relford’s way. Relford had talked about the fear many NRA members have about registering their guns as a prelude to taking them away. Tim’s email reads:

“I’d just like to point out that there is a difference between laws that actually violate Second Amendment rights and laws that raise the fear of that possibility in the future. A law that requires a national registry is not the same as a law that infringes on gun ownership.”

Relford nods his head and grants that, maybe, this is a case of gun advocates being too alarmist.

I ask Relford a question about the often absolutist reading of the Second Amendment. I say that people have a First Amendment right to express themselves by texting, but we don’t see laws preventing them from texting while they’re driving as infringements of their constitutional rights. We argue that, while they’re in the public sphere, the public’s interest has to be taken into consideration.

Relford nods his head and says that should be the standard – acknowledging the individual’s right to bear arms while realizing that the public also has an interest in providing reasonable assurances of safety.

Once we’re off the air, I tell Relford that, for millions of us, the issue is not one of wanting to take guns away from law-abiding citizens but of getting some acknowledgement that the public’s interest matters, too.

Relford says that’s a fair point.

And he adds that what irritates many NRA members and gun advocates is that they’re lumped in with criminals who behave in a way that defies and violates the NRA’s very principles of safety and responsibility. Gun owners resent, he says, the implied argument that they bear moral responsibility for actions they despise.

That, too, is a fair point – one that suggests that, rather than holding rallies to “stand and fight,” we all would be better served to issue invitations to sit down and talk.

John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism, host of “No Limits” WFYI 90.1 Indianapolis and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.