For aliens from the planet Zork to visit Earth, they would have to be unimaginably more technologically advanced than us in order to travel faster than the speed of light. Keeping that in mind, if they came to the USA and studied the issue of gun rights vs. gun control, this is what they would find:
1. The Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, amendment #2, states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
They would also note that the US Supreme Court, which interprets the constitution and rules on interpretative disputes, has concluded that the second amendment protects the citizens’ right to own guns in the USA.
The Zorkians would also note that the 1st amendment protects freedom of speech. Some low-information Americans think that their right to own guns cannot be qualified in any way, but the Zorkians would realize that the 1st amendment constitutional guarantee of free speech is qualified, since one cannot yell “fire!’ in a crowded theater without severe legal and civil consequences because laws exist that qualify freedom of speech. The Zorkians would conclude that gun rights can likewise be qualified with requirements.
The Zorkians would study human psychology, human passions and weaknesses, and human history. They would also study the history of guns and their various iterations and characteristics. They would study the recent massacres committed in the USA over the past few years including Columbine, Aurora, Phoenix, and Newtown. They’d absorb the history of gun control laws in the USA, from the gangster-inspired 1934 National Firearms Act, through the JFK assassination-inspired 1968 Gun Control Act, then the 1986 Firearm Owner’s Protection Act, the Reagan assassination attempt-inspired 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Act, and the 1994 The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which banned some, not all assault weapons until it expired in 2004. They would also study the 50 states and their often-contradictory gun-control laws and they would note with utter bewilderment that what is legal in one state is illegal one inch away in another state.
Finally, they’d study humans on both sides of the issue, with emphasis on the extremes. They would first hear from the anti-gun lobby that the only way to stop gun violence is to ban all handguns, all assault rifles, all ammunition that can penetrate clothing, all large-capacity bullet cartridges, and any weapon that doesn’t emit a loud siren wail when loaded. This statement would baffle and perplex them, in light of the well-established second amendment.
Then they’d listen to the pro-gun lobby (consisting mostly of men and Sarah Palin, the Zorkians would note curiously), and they would evaluate the following repeated arguments:
1. “Gun don’t kill people, people kill people! Without guns, people would just uses knives !” Of all the idiotic rationales that the Zorkians would hear, this one would win the Zorkian Supreme Prize for Stupidity. Zorkians would know that guns in the hands of people kill people, and that guns enable killing from a distance that knives don’t. “WTF”, they would say in Zorkian, as they laughed through their armpit openings.
2. “The democrat-controlled government will take our guns away from us, but we’ll defend our constitutional right to own guns by revolting against the government”. The Zorkians would consider this the epitome of fantasyland paranoia and hypocrisy, because the constitutional US government has repeatedly acknowledged the constitutional right to private gun ownership; however, overthrowing the US government is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
3. “If all Americans had guns, gun crime would disappear!” This argument would convince the Zorkians that the human race is simply not ready for prime time. They would look at humans and see that all of them have hands, and then point out that hands are the primary item universally used in every single crime ever committed in the known universe (among all those races that actually have hands).
The Zorkians would then, after spending 1.2 seconds on all of the above (remember, time has no meaning to them), conclude that controlling gun crime is no more difficult than controlling a starship through a time warp – something their offspring learn to do while still in both their parents’ shared womb.
They would offer this simple and elegant solution to humanity:
1. Via a federal system, register all future gun sales into a central database, thus eliminating differences, gaps, and even non-registration in some states.
2. Via a federal system, require a streamlined, computerized, centralized background check of all potential gun buyers. This background check would check for any past violent criminal convictions and also check for any psychological records indicating mental, emotional, or psychotic characteristics as inputted by psychiatrists, local medical experts and/or hospitals.
3. Via a federal system, encourage voluntary registration of currently-owned firearms by offering meaningful incentives like federal income tax credits (e.g., $500 credit per gun registration). While not perfect, gun owners would informed that if they didn’t participate and one of their guns was stolen and used in a crime, they might be prime suspects, or ultimately be charged as accessories to a crime committed with their gun. Kind of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” in reverse. 
Then the Zorkians would depart, leaving an intergalactic traffic warning sign (invisible to humanity, of course) for the rest of the galaxy to avoid the planet Earth, which says,
Sorry, amigo, but you’re attacking the problem from the wrong angle, an angle that has been shown repeatedly to fail. Every single mass shooting in this country save one in which more than four people were killed has one thing in common — the all occurred (with that one exception) in a “Gun-Free Zone.” Those who insist upon repeating these failed experiments called “Gun-Free Zones,” and who then fail to protect the only people in them who have been disarmed by those designations (the law-abiding ones), should be held liable for the inevitable result.
On a related note:
If a crazy person shoots up a public gathering, we want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens.
If a crazy person or a drunk hurls a three-ton SUV into a crowd, should we also take away automobiles from law-abiding citizens?
Yeah . . . I thought not. Same principle applies.
Doug, with respect, I think you might have misread or misinterpreted my intended message.
The article does not advocate a “gun-free zone”. Instead, it advocates a common-sense nationwide standard that makes it streamlined to determine if a potential gun purchaser is a violent felon or an unstable psychiatric risk. That standard also advocates voluntary, incentivized nationwide registration of already-owned guns, which a number of states already REQUIRE, anyway.
An additional point of the article was to demonstrate that extreme views on EITHER side of the issue are passion-based and only serve to confuse the issue.
I hope this clears up the intent. Maybe the article should be “edited’?
Howie,
I was kinda taking aim at some of the “Zorkian” observations because, to be perfectly frank, I do believe that more armed citizens trained and licensed to carry concealed weapons does in fact reduce crime. And there are numerous studies that show just that.
My point about Gun-Free Zones (which I’ve been ranting about in my own blog — see links below) is that these failed experiments in gun control on a micro scale are what’s getting people killed. These homicidal lunatics are seeking out “Gun-Free” Zones because they know that there will be no one there to return fire. So, yes, more guns (especially in what are now laughingly designated “Gun-Free” Zones) would indeed have a deterrent effect. But that wasn’t really aimed (pun intended) at your blog so much as it was just making a related, albeit peripheral, point.
Anyway, there’s not that much of a dichotomy between our views. I’m not one of those ranting gun nuts who believes any restriction is a bad restriction. I’m actually for requiring registration of all gun transactions, especially at gun shows and in private sales. If you’ve ever been to a gun show and seen the prices of new weaponry (as opposed to the collector stuff), then you know that the only people purchasing there are doing so because for some reason they cannot legitimately (meaning: legally) purchase them through a retail outlet.
But some of the stuff being proposed (not by you) has absolutely no basis in reality — restricting magazine capacities (it takes lesss than two seconds for a practiced individual to swap magazines) and banning assault weapons (which are used in only 3.5% of all violent crime) are merely feel-good gestures that only infringe upon those who are law-abiding gun owners. Nothing gets my back up more than some senator from California or mayor from New York telling me that I should not be allowed to have something because in their view I don’t “need” it. Since when in this country does someone else get to arbitrarily decide what I can or cannot purchase based upon their determination of my “needs?” What’s next? Ferraris because I don’t “need” the speed? A 60-inch television because I don’t “need” something that large? A 32-ounce soft drink because I don’t “need” . . . oh, wait — the mayor of New York already banned those.
Talk about an unconstitutional and unwarranted intrusion into one’s personal life!
More Big Brother? Really? Do we really want more government oversight? Why not just check everyone for mental illness instead of just the gun owners?
R. Doug
How many concealed weapons carriers have stopped any shootings or taken out the bad guy to prevent a robbery or murder, compared to those who have pulled a weapon on a bad guy, hesitated and were killed or wounded themselves? Haven’t heard of any in the Eastern United States deterring the crime or saving the day, maybe its different in El Paso!
We need some common sense with the 2nd Amendment! No one wants to take your guns! But only trained professionals of our military and police forces should have assault weapons and high capacity magazines! No hunter or sporstman need these things! Background checks on everyone who wants to purchase any type of weapon and if they are mentally ill or have been convicted of felony crimes – no weapons!
Our forefathers never envisioned these assault weapons and high capacity magazines when they wrote the 2nd Amendment! Common Sense is what is needed! Will these measures stop the insane from killing more -NO! However, if they have to change magazines after ten rounds, it gives people, like in AZ a chance to subdue the individual and stop the killing of more!
I was hoping you’d address all the calls lately for arming the teachers. Frankly I’m not in favor of this at all.
I think we could keep the school just as safe by…say… installing bars on doors & windows. Something that can’t be shot up to gain entry. Stores have metal grates or roll down barriers to keep the bad guys out! Aren’t our children more precious than merchandise?
And I don’t care how a teacher is trained in gun safety or marksmanship….it’s not the same thing if they’re confronted with the situation that calls for aiming at someone’s heart & pulling the trigger.
I was in uniform for 6 years….both active duty & reserves…and I still have a hard time coping with things we were forced to do to stay alive. I don’t think we should ask our educators to do this.
Let’s let those that are trained to teach….teach! And those than are trained to protect….protect!
@Dick
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57562397-504083/georgia-mother-hides-children-shoots-intruder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/