Rethinking the Gun Control Debate


by Devon Dunn

The opinions expressed in this piece are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the BU College Democrats at large. 

Columbine. Virginia Tech. Aurora. Newtown.

These names remain forever in the memories of citizens across America. Endless debates over what triggers these tragedies spark up time and time again. Indeed, there is a lot of incriminating evidence on the table. Not only do Americans have more guns than anyone else in the world, with 270 million privately owned firearms, but they also have the highest gun ownership rate per capita in the world, with an average of about 9 guns for every 10 Americans. Meanwhile, the United States boasts one of the highest numbers of gun-related deaths per year, next to Mexico. Clearly, Americans have an issue. Identifying the problem is simple. Forming a plan to solve this problem is the hard part.

Following the recent tragedies, I was entirely in favor of the strictest of gun control, like most gun-ignorant liberals. I have never used a gun. No one in my family has ever owned a gun. I knew nothing about guns, except that a bullet came out and it hurt people.  Despite this, when I read the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban I thought, “Wow, this looks great. We need to reinstate this.” For those of you who are unfamiliar with the legislation, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban outlawed specific guns, prohibiting semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazines and two or more of the following features: folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, and grenade launchers. At first glance, this legislation seemed ideal. But then I looked into what these features really do.

The stock on a rifle is the part of the gun that rests on your shoulder to firmly support the device, therefore aiming it easier, and to transmit recoil to the body. All rifles have stocks; a folding or telescopic stock is simply an extension of this feature to improve its function. A pistol grip is generally the part of the gun that is held by the hand for stability. A bayonet mount is where a bayonet can be put for close combat. A flash suppressor reduces the flash of a gun when firing by rapidly cooling the burning gases that exit the muzzle. Contrary to popular belief, its purpose is to prevent the shooter from being blinded at night. A flash suppressor is not to be confused with a sound suppressor, which reduces the amount of noise generated by firing a weapon, but does not silence it. Sound suppressors are currently strictly regulated in the United States. A grenade launcher’s purpose is simply to hold and launch grenades. However, grenades are illegal to civilians in the US.

I hated to admit it, but the more I looked into the banned features, the more cosmetic they seemed. Banning these features did not seem to address the gun’s potential for mass destruction.
But there has got to be another way to do this, right? Well, that is why Congress tried to additionally outlaw specific guns through the ban, such as certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s. However, a few months later, gun manufacturers continued to make these same guns, but changed the names. So, if it is impossible to ban specific guns outright, then why not just ban certain calibers? In that case, manufacturers could easily retool guns to a slightly different caliber.

The only option left is to ban how a gun operates. Automatic guns (aka machine guns) were banned officially in 1986 and are no longer available to civilians. An automatic gun will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed. Meanwhile, a semi-automatic weapon will fire with every pull of the trigger, and THIS is where the danger of guns lies. A shooter can fire many rounds in a short amount of time without having to reload.

The problem is, if you ban semi-automatic weapons, you eliminate an entire class of weapons that are used in many people’s daily lives as part of their careers and for sport. For example, ranchers use semi-automatic guns to keeping predators away from their livestock. A minority would stay that it is still worth the cost. But the majority of Americans would not support a ban of this magnitude, and Congress knows this. It is easy to say “I’m going to ban assault weapons,” but it is pretty much impossible to tell your constituents “I am also going to take away your ranch rifles and shotguns too.” It is not just the “gun lobby” that would oppose this. It is the American public. Many Representatives and Senators would not be re-elected if they supported this type of ban.

But fear not, fellow left-wingers! This does not mean that there is nothing we can do. President Obama recently proposed restricting magazine capacity to ten rounds or less. A magazine contains the bullets and must be replaced when all rounds in the magazine are fired. The killer in the Aurora shooting entered the movie theater with a 100 round magazine. A 100 round magazine serves absolutely no civilian purpose. Ten rounds are plenty for defensive purposes. And in regards to mass shooters, changing magazines under pressure, especially for an inexperienced shooter, is not an easy task. Forcing a shooter to repeatedly change magazines provides an edge. It provides time for others to react. It provides time for potential victims to run. It provides time when the shooter is essentially as defenseless as the victims. According to the Sandy Hook medical examiner, each victim was shot multiple times at short range. With close to thirty casualties and assuming the use of a thirty round magazine as per reports, Adam Lanza had to reload at least once.

That changes to five times with a ten round magazine. Five different chances for someone to escape.

In my opinion, limiting magazines is the clearest and most effective way to regulate guns. This is not to say that it will provide an end-all solution to gun violence. As a country we need to instate universal background checks.  Psychological testing and gun education classes before gaining gun access. A national registry. Improved mental health care. It may be a large undertaking, but I think we can all agree that something needs to be done.

(Photo credit: Carlo Allegri/Reuters)


Legalizing Gay Marriage: An Inevitable Outcome?

by Margarita Diaz, Communications Director

The opinions expressed in this piece are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the BU College Democrats at large. 

On February 12th, the lower house of the French National Assembly, with backing from President Francois Hollande, passed Marriage for All, a bill that would not only legalize gay marriage, but also allow same sex couples to adopt children. Just six days earlier, on February 5th, Great Britain’s House of Commons, led by Prime Minister David Cameron’s Coalition government, voted 400 to 175 in favor of similar marriage equality legislation. While both bills must still endure committee hearings and long debates in their respective upper houses, they are likely to become law.

This, without a doubt, is progress.

At the time of writing, eleven countries – Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden – allow same-sex couples to marry. With France and Britain on the cusp of passing equal marriage legislation, isn’t it only a matter of time before all of the United States follows suit?

I have heard repeatedly from people of differing political affiliations that the legalization of gay marriage in the United States on the Federal level is inevitable; that it’s the direction our country is heading in, and that somewhere in the not-so-distant future those who vehemently oppose it will be relegated to the fringes of public opinion.

But when you pick things apart, that kind of mentality is pure complacency.

In a commentary on the passage of the UK’s marriage equality bill, The Independent’s Owen Jones remarked, “It was huge sacrifice that got us here. Never forget it.” While the French and British governments have moved in a progressive direction, neither achievement was without volumes of contention and backlash, ranging from the conservative Members of the British Parliament who gave grandiose speeches likening gay marriage to incest, to the 800,000 person protests for traditional marriage outside the National Assembly in Paris. In the case of France, the Marriage for All bill passed by virtue of the Left’s majority in the Assembly, carried by a slim margin of 100 votes, out of more than 530.

So what now for the United States? In a country with divided political opinion, where LGBT rights have been granted at a slower, more segmented pace, more extreme voices of opposition reap the benefits of a political system that hands them a large megaphone.

But against all odds, the tide is slowly but surely turing. A recent Gallup poll shows that US public opinion on marriage equality is swaying, with about 53% of all Americans currently in support of same-sex couples’ right to marry. Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s extension of benefits to same-sex partners of military personnel, as well as President Obama’s historic endorsement of marriage equality in May of last year, proves that America has achieved progress that would have been unthinkable as recently as decade ago.

Indeed, the United States has made significant strides toward marriage equality, but we still face a long haul. Proposition 8 still awaits hearing before the United States Supreme Court. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church continue to march under the slogan “God Hates Fags.” And, while the victories in the United Kingdom and France are cause for optimism, I remain convinced that we will never achieve marriage equality without hard work, strong voices, and consistent advocacy. President Obama himself said that marriage equality can only be achieved “step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind.”

We’ve got to keep going.

Photo credit: Getty Images/Justin Sullivan

Room for Compromise in Immigration Debate







by Emma Brandon, Vice President

“Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving,
hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity,” proclaimed President
Obama in his second inaugural address. This proclamation kicked off a firestorm of
activity in the White House and on Capitol Hill to find the better way that the President
had demanded.

The White House came out with a plan that included strengthening borders,
cracking down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and a path to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently in the country. The path to citizenship
element of the President’s proposal is by far the most controversial and misunderstood
element. Obama’s plan would require that immigrants pass security and criminal
background checks; pay taxes; learn English; and “go to the back of the line” for green

A bi-partisan group of Senators quickly formed a “Gang of 8” in response
to the President’s proposal and wrote their own immigration reform proposal. The
“Gang of 8”’s proposal includes strikingly similar plans to the President’s proposal
on strengthening borders and the hiring of illegal immigrants but differs greatly on its
prioritization and ideas on a path to citizenship. The plan contains a provision for a
similar path to citizenship only after it can be proven that the borders are secure. The
“Gang of 8” also proposes the creation of a commission of Governors, Mayors, and
Attorneys General from states that are along the United States’ Southwestern border to
determine whether this condition has been met and whether it is now time to establish a
path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are currently in the country.

The major sticking point for Republicans in the House of Representatives
appears to also be the President’s proposal of a path to citizenship. The current House
Republican position is not clearly defined and is evolving as hearings on the subject
in House Judiciary Committee that began on Tuesday, February 5 continue. Many
leading Republicans such as Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
have wondered aloud whether there is a middle ground between a path to citizenship and
mass deportation. Goodlatte has suggested that the answer may be legal residency for
current undocumented immigrants but there has been no consensus House Republican
plan on the issue. This relatively moderate position demonstrates that there is room for
compromise although the fact that a recent AP-Gfk poll has shown that more than 6 in
10 Americans support a path to citizenship may be a sign that the President need not
compromise on this issue.