Spring Break
Progressive Gun Control: Tushnet v. Cornell
Brianna McDonald
Issue date: 11/9/06 Section: News
On Thursday, November 2, the American Constitution Society hosted a debate between Professor Mark Tushnet and historian Saul Cornell over the challenges and possibilities for progressive gun control policy.
Tushnet joined the Harvard Law School faculty this year as William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law after spending twenty-five years teaching at the Georgetown University Law Center. Cornell, an Associate Professor of History at Ohio State University and Director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute, recently published a book on the history of gun control entitled A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.
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."
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."
Tushnet joined the Harvard Law School faculty this year as William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law after spending twenty-five years teaching at the Georgetown University Law Center. Cornell, an Associate Professor of History at Ohio State University and Director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute, recently published a book on the history of gun control entitled A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.
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."
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."
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 23
Geoff Palmer
posted 11/09/06 @ 4:06 PM EST
Progressives ignore the issue because when they try to tamper with the constitution, they get caught and kicked out of office. As one would expect, Cornell quotes only negative firearm statistics but conveniently fails to mention the millions of legitimate uses where firearms are used to save lives and protect innocents. (Continued…)
Hugh Jardohn
posted 11/09/06 @ 5:13 PM EST
I don;t know much about "cultural resonance" or "detaching issues" but one thing jumps out the piece for me. Mr. Cornell is quoted as saying; "There is a way of making gun control an issue that is not poison to the left," Cornell stated. (Continued…)
James Mullen
posted 11/09/06 @ 5:58 PM EST
The article stated:
"...approximately 30,000 Americans die each year as a result of gun violence..."
That is not true at all! There are approximatley 30,000 deaths involving firearms, but they are not all the result of violence. (Continued…)
Patrick Calabro
posted 11/09/06 @ 7:25 PM EST
"progressive argument in favor of regulations"
Progressives & Regulations...they go hand in hand.
Roy Hill
posted 11/10/06 @ 8:46 AM EST
I love it.
First, let's hide liberal anti-gun bigots behind the term "progressive."
Second, let's set up a "debate" between a pair of these "progressives," both of whom fundamentally agree on the bedrock issues, with the only "debate" being is gun control actually worth all the time and effort. (Continued…)
Bill
posted 11/10/06 @ 1:21 PM EST
Cornell has obviously spent too much time in his ivory tower. Government not evil? What do you call 160 million dead at the hands of governments in the 20th century? BTW, this figure does not include war dead. (Continued…)
David Smith
posted 11/10/06 @ 4:05 PM EST
Translation--Is there any way we can trick those hicks outta their guns ?
Kevin P.
posted 11/10/06 @ 5:48 PM EST
Yes, it looks like the American Constitution Society set up a sham debate between two people who agree on the goal of gun control without agreeing on the means. (Continued…)
Gene
posted 11/10/06 @ 6:41 PM EST
Gun control is as ineffectual at controlling crime as using one bucket of sand to control a flood. Until the root causes of crime, criminals, are controlled there will be no reduction. (Continued…)
Liberal Republican from Oregon
posted 11/10/06 @ 11:01 PM EST
The quote, "Both scholars agreed that the actual impact of any realistically achievable gun control policy would not have the sweeping effect on reducing gun violence. (Continued…)
Post a Comment