Cornell Liberals’ Fantasy: Redefine Freedom for Sake of Gun Control

This article is a response to, among other things, an opinion piece published several weeks ago by the Cornell Sun, and growing opposition toward gun rights.

“This Has Everything to Do With Guns.” That’s what Cornell Sun columnist Emily Hardin ’16 boldly and, as we will see, quite incorrectly titled her article in response to the tragic Oregon shootings several weeks ago. In her leftist rant on America’s “ignorance and misinformation” concerning gun violence, Hardin comes to the conclusion that “we must broadly redefine our conception of ‘freedom,’ so that it means the right to live safely rather than personal entitlement to own a firearm.”

Essentially, she is stating that gun rights should be ditched in favor of an attempt to boost safety in a society that, when compared to the war-torn, inhospitable climates in which millions around the world struggle to survive every day, is relatively safe. The author’s opposition toward private gun ownership reflects a disturbing and disheartening trend in current American society: a rising sentiment of disagreement with the right to legally own firearms, and the rising call for restrictive gun laws.

This trend is all-too-evident in the politics of today; as Hillary Clinton proclaimed two weeks ago at the Democratic presidential debate, “It’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA.”

Clinton also expressed her support of mandatory gun buyback programs, or (dropping the euphemisms) government confiscation of legally-owned private property. A federal appeals court recently upheld parts of New York and Connecticut laws banning semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines, and according to a recent Gallup poll, support for tighter gun laws has surpassed fifty percent, the highest it has been since immediately after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

While there is no denying that gun violence is an issue in this nation, there is much denying to be done when it comes to the root cause. Contrary to Hardin’s assertions, this actually doesn’t have “everything to do with guns”, but rather with a society in which violence and crime are praised through mediums of popular culture such as music, TV shows, movies, games, and music, and in which emotionally unstable people don’t get the assistance they need.

In this way, we can compare the status of guns to the status of alcohol, as drinking too is encouraged and glorified in popular culture, and many alcoholics don’t receive the rigorous treatment they need. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 16.6 million US adults ages 18 and over had an alcohol use disorder in 2013. Additionally, an estimated 88,000 die from alcohol related causes every year. That is far more than double the 34,000 gun deaths Hardin cites for 2013.

Why don’t we redefine freedom again and ban alcohol – it causes more deaths than guns do. Because, as history has proven, that wouldn’t work. During Prohibition of the 1920s, bootleggers still brewed, and alcohol remained prevalent. Similarly, if we tightened gun restrictions, the black market and underground crime networks nationwide would remain virtually unaffected. The perpetrators of mass shootings that Hardin is so worried about would still be able to obtain firearms (and still would), just not legally.

To conclude, this has very little to do with guns, which are inanimate objects, and thus incapable of perpetrating violence on their own. Instead, the issue is with the violence-revering culture of this nation and with those who are negatively influenced by it. Instead of redefining a basic principle that our nation was founded upon, maybe we should instead treat the Constitution with the respect it deserves and redirect our attention toward refocusing American culture on more positive influences, improved care for the mentally unstable, and requiring a more psychologically-thorough system of background checks.