The same day the Sandy Hook tragedy occurred, a similar tragedy occurred in China. However, unlike Adam Lanza, the Chinese attacker had a knife instead of a gun. As a result, he was only able to injure the 22 school children and one adult against whom he expressed his violence. Gun control laws in China are among the toughest in the world, and these twin tragedies only prove gun control is directly related to fatality rates.
Look guys, I like guns as much as the next guy. The man who taught me about a sixth of life’s lessons was a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association and left my grandmother with an impressive gun collection. I grew up knowing about gun safety and building deer stands. There is nothing I respect more than your right as a stable, sane citizen to buy a gun that will allow you to hunt whatever deer you wish. But I’m tired of seeing gun-related deaths on the news day after day. With evidence mounting that gun control laws do work at stopping gun-related deaths, I can’t help but think it’s time we took control of the situation.
I have heard several blanket arguments which people use to avoid even thinking about gun control over my lifetime. One of the most popular includes citing the Second Amendment as meaning all people should be allowed to own all guns. I would argue the right to bear arms does not necessarily grant the right to grant whatever arms you want to, like automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.
A person who is capable of owning a gun without shooting another human should have the right to do so. I just think the right should be earned through good citizenship and a clean bill of mental health.
Perhaps the most infuriating statement used to blindly lobby against gun laws is the ever-popular “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Well, be that as it may, 60 percent of homicides in the United States occur using a firearm.
I can’t help but think in these cases guns are enabling “killing people” at a fundamental level. Their deaths are a direct result of gun availability. If that’s not guns killing people, I don’t know what is. Other weapons exist, certainly. But they are not the weapons causing 60 percent of homicides in this country.
An argument I have heard so many times as to be criminally annoying is the one that “banning guns will do nothing because criminals don’t obey laws.”
Sure, but limiting access to guns for criminals, as the plan President Obama released on Wednesday does, does do something. The argument that goes along with this one is that “guns aren’t biodegradable,” meaning instituting laws against lawful citizens owning guns will do nothing because guns will still exist (in plenitude) and still be available to those who do not obey the new laws. They’re right in pointing to this problem as an issue that complicates gun legislation.
I can’t agree with them, however, when they point to it as a reason to give up on gun control. Tightening access to guns by criminals as well as law-abiding citizens is possible. And the president’s proposal to reopen research about gun violence is a good start to figuring out the best way to do that. But the main problem with the debate against gun control is the NRA’s stance that more law-abiding citizens should have guns so as to defend themselves against other people who have guns. The idea that by arming everyone, fewer people will be shot is fundamentally flawed. It has proven to be false time and again.
For one thing, just because you own a gun doesn’t mean you can’t be shot with it. And for another, humans are emotional beings. If we were to give everyone a gun, deaths by gun would rise exponentially.
That’s the simple truth. To be honest, the NRA’s refusal to agree with any type of gun control feels like a personal slight to me. It’s always been my understanding the NRA is a union of sorts to protect the rights of the average good ol’ boy hunter. But that’s not what is happening.
Under the proposed gun control laws, not much would change for the average hunter. He or she would have to undergo a background check to purchase a gun, gun shows would change dramatically and the hunter would need to check the locks on his or her gun cabinet. Other than that, his or her lives could continue as usual.
The thing is, the proposed gun laws are not that radical, even among Republicans. According to a Washington Post poll, both Republicans and Democrats support background checks on private gun sales and sales at gun shows and laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns. Furthermore, nearly half of Republicans support a ban on assault-style semi-automatic weapons.
If you’re really serious about making sure any new gun laws look out for your interests as a gun owner, you should stop fighting against gun control laws “on principle” and start working with legislators to suggest modifications that work for you while helping to address the serious gun problem our country is facing.