Should recent events sway us into a nation banned of guns?
There is no denying the fact that violence is present in the world. Yet, for the most part crimes which are highlighted as of recently have centered on those involving guns. Does this mean that guns have just now started to be dangerous or that somehow those using guns have become a bit more ignorant in how to properly use a gun? I would say that this is not so much the case. Where the kettledrum of gun control legislation really started with Columbine, school shootings have been occurring since the 1700s with the Pontiac Rebellion School massacre.
To say that school shootings and other civilian events are new and grounds for gun bans is in error. I am not insensitive as to family suffering or saying that these families should not have closure, but let not the closure be at the expense of the populace’s liberties. Let us take a look at some of these current events and see why a ban on guns would be ineffectual.
Not the norm
Bruco Eastwood, who had previously served time in a mental hospital, opened fire on the Littleton Colorado school injuring Matt Thieu and Reagan Weber. Matt Thieu was shot in the chest and Regan Weber sustained an injury to the arm. During the shooting David Benke jumped upon Bruco Eastwood and was able to stop a possible mass slaughter.
This shooting shows us that the shooter was not the average person. The fact that he was able to obtain a gun should be the real question as most states have laws prohibiting the purchase, ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition by anyone who has been in a mental institution.
Looking at school shootings, you will find a common factor, “mentally disturbed”. Sure other adjectives are commonly used such as dark, a loner, and sadistic. Perhaps instead of focusing on the guns which these “disturbed” individuals carry, there should be more attention in focusing on the mental state of the students prior to them yielding a weapon with the intent to kill.
It’s not my gun
Most states regulate that a person has to be a legal adult in order to purchase a firearm. Yet, when looking at the school shootings and sibling shootings we see that the typical shooter is under the age of 18.
Pearl City, Hawaii
A 14 year old male student fires a handgun on the Highlands Intermediate School. One student is wounded. In the investigation two more students were arrested as co-conspirators of the shooting.
A third grader is accidently shot by another student that brings a 9mm to school. There was nothing hostile about this situation. The gun went off inside the book bag when it was dropped on the floor. Amina Kocer-Bowman sustained an injury to the spine but recovered.
A 14 year old opens fire at Price Middle School injuring a faculty member and another student. The shooting was the result that the 14 year old was having with the student who was shot upon.
Note the common denominator here. All these persons were well under the age of being able to purchase a gun legally. This means that either someone gave that person access to a gun (and should be held accountable for contributing to the crime) or that the gun was improperly stored and was stolen from a person legally able to own the firearm. In either situation it is clear that if a person wants to shoot someone, a ban will not do any good in keeping a firearm out of their hands.
Guns don’t kill people, motivated killers do
The argument that guns will stop violent crimes among civilians is simply not true. Take for instance the 14,000 people taken to hospitals in the UK. The UK has banned firearms as of 1997’s Amendment no 2. Foxnews.com gave a report by the FBI which stated that more people are killed with hammers and clubs each year than from rifles. To argue that sibling shootings and mall shootings and such other targeted areas where tragedy has occurred is a sure sign that guns need to be banned, I would offer two solutions:
- Lock up your guns and ammunition in two locations as advised by most gun dealers and the NRA. This prevents a gun from being accessed by a sibling and fired accidently, especially if the safes have two separate combinations.
- Malls and public places where civilians frequent should think about using metal detectors. The airports use them, libraries and stores use scanners, what is the problem with using them in other facilities. This would stop not only guns but the other weapons used in civilian crime as well.
What then is the solution?
Civilian conflicts will always continue to occur. It is the job of the people to avoid the conflicts between individuals by focusing on the mental health of our youth, restricting access to legally owned firearms by proper practices and procedures, to put an emphasis on human life instead of passing legislation that diminishes and demoralizes it. Again, these tragic events are sympathized with, but let us not get our vision skewed from such events. Shootings occur mostly from individuals in an altered mental state (many of whom are under the legal age to own a firearm) who has already determined that they will cause harm upon a civilian.
Should we ban guns in an attempt to reduce the crime rates? No, crime would still continue, guns would still be available to those which really wanted them (think of what happened when alcohol was banned), and lives would still be lost from those who want to take them.
Don't ban the guns. Prohibition and the "drug war" show that banning something people want is a waste of time and money.
But exercise mature judgement and controls http://www.telltrail.com/forum-categories/social-issues/law-order/is-the-2nd-amendment-a-license-to-kill?
that do justice to the character of guns and keep guns away from the immature, stupid or careless who are really responsible for so much tragedy