In the United States, the issues and emotions surrounding gun control often obfuscate what is in essence, a matter of personal choice and responsibility. Currently, a majority of Americans believe that tighter gun restrictions, than those already in place, should be implemented to reduce crime rates and the incidence of mass shootings; and, with support ebbing from the recent Virginia Tech massacre, many politicians and preachers alike have advocated this reactionary policy. Although this action is merited by adding comfort to victims, such measures do not produce a more peaceful society than presently, and may inhibit law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
With the first outcries of accidental gun-related suicides of children, the American media along with bureaucrats have jumped on the legislative bandwagon by claiming these tragedies could have been prevented through more gun laws already in the books. Paradoxically, what many Americans would find as means to lower crime rates – tighter gun control laws – has shown to cause the exact opposite in many case studies in other countries. In countries like England, for example, the rate of violent crime declined when more guns were previously available, and has since sky rocketed after the government enacted tighter gun restriction than in the past. Furthermore, in many cases "no-gun zones" (schools, post offices, and airplanes) have been the host to many of the most heinous gun incidences in the nation's history. In cases like the Virginia Tech shooting, the victims were law-abiding students and professors who were deterred by the no-gun zone policy, and the attacker took advantage of this situation. If these restrictions were not in place, and the assailant expected an armed campus, he may have been deterred. In addition, the economist James Ostrowski attests, in reference to the attacks of September 11, 2001 "…a $400 billion security apparatus of the federal government couldn't protect us from catastrophic terrorism, but a few handguns in the cockpits, long discouraged by federal policy, might have saved the day." Given this tendency, one must question the validity of gun laws, and their ability to protect the innocent who abide by such laws from the criminals who do not.
From ghastly news segments to sound bites from politicians, the public is constantly bombarded with warnings surrounding gun ownership; however, case studies have shown that over two-million violent crimes are stopped yearly by potential victims, with 98% of impending crimes stopped by merely brandishing a gun. While accidental adolescent household gun incidences do happen – about thirty a year – the potential benefits could outweigh these incidences, given that five times as many crimes are deterred by guns, compared to how many are committed with guns. Political proposals for gun safety, such as mandatory gun locks, have potentially harmful effects, as unlocking and unloading a gun gives a victim less time to protect themselves than if the restrictions were not in place. It seems that instilling gun laws equate to less safety, but politicians refuse to let facts intervene in decision-making.
Although the proponents of gun laws simply may be voicing their good intentions, this does not justify disenfranchisement nor does it allow for sound policy. Gun restrictions are futile as a deterrent to criminals, and are harmful to the populous. If politicians were capable of actually caring for the welfare of the general population, then they would not pass such reckless restrictions.
November 13, 2007
