As if the issue was not hot enough before, this past year has proven to be more controversial than ever as Americans debate over the issue of gun control. It has been debated in America in the past, but it certainly gained immediate relevance with the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., and the Sandy Hook Newtown shooting. Now, the issue is hotly debated as citizens, politicians and the National Rifle Association try to find a solution.
What are people saying? On one side there is a group of people who believe guns should be banned completely, or that there should be extremely heavy restrictions on firearms. They believe guns are the problem, and getting rid of as many of them as possible is the solution. They will say that where there are guns, there will be violent crime.
On the other side is a group of people who believe that guns are not the problem but that criminals are the problem, and that taking guns away from all people is not the answer. Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the NRA articulated these ideals shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting when he said, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” LaPierre said.
It is certainly a challenge to make sense out of it all. Both sides have strong arguments and the solution in such an ethical dilemma is never black and white. Before making any definitive statements, it will be important to examine the evidence.
First, it’s important to note that the NRA and Congress have put many restrictions on the research done on this issue, and it is therefore very difficult to find any legitimate statistics. The water is muddied further as people display false or limited information all over the Internet to back their own opinions.
With that in mind, it is my understanding that there are three specific pieces of evidence to consider. First, in Evanston, Ill., a town of 75,000 residents put a ban on all handguns in 1982. The crime rate did not budge when this occurred, and they quickly removed the ban. Next, among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates in America, 10 of them have extreme restrictions on firearms if not complete bans. In Jamaica, when handguns were heavily restricted the violent crime rate actually accelerated.
This evidence indicates to me that the concentration of guns and the concentration of crime have no real correlation. The problem remains, though, that there are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends who are losing their loved ones to gun violence every day. How is the government supposed to answer their cries of pain?
The truth as I see it is this: Banning and severely limiting the possession of guns is not the answer. This approach has been tried multiple times and it simply does not work. If criminals want guns, they will find ways to get them whether it is legal or not; if the law-abiding citizens are refused their constitutional right to bear arms then they will naturally obey the law and be left defenseless against violent criminals who care nothing about the law.
Clearly, however, there must be some limitations on firearms. The best way to resolve the issue is to continue the restrictions on firearms, but certainly not to ban them entirely. All people wishing to own firearms need a background check first. Anyone with a criminal background, especially a violent one, should be restricted from owning firearms, while law-abiding citizens with no criminal background should not be restricted. This method would allow law-abiding citizens to have the protection they desire and deserve while limiting the number of guns circulating the criminal network. Realistically we know that the crime will never disappear, but to limit the violent criminals and strengthen the law-abiding citizens would certainly be a step in the right direction.
