ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

An Idea for Better Gun Laws

Updated on July 30, 2012

Just one person's opinion

Taking away an individual’s right to own guns for sport use would be the only result of a more restrictive approach to gun control, in my opinion. Criminals will always find a way to get hold of an arsenal of weapons to do whatever they feel is what they want to do until they get caught or killed. My idea of improving the gun laws throughout the world has to do with the number of guns you would be allowed to have, rounds of ammunition and what you can do with these weapons.

The average individual has no rational need for an arsenal of weapons (with the possible exception of telemarketer defence), so limiting ownership to a small number of weapons would allow the sports enthusiast to target shoot or hunt occasionally. Thus, there is no need for a large number of rounds of ammunition to load these weapons. So if you are caught with a number of weapons and/or ammunition above the legal limit, then you get a penalty much like those that drive with alcohol above the legal limit. Suffice it to say, that the penalty increases with the number of weapons and ammunition above the limit.

If you participate in a criminal act with a gun intended for “sport” use, then the penalty also increases with the severity of the crime. It is not an accident that gun deaths are some 20 times higher in the United States than they are in other developed countries as I was informed on one of the United States news channels after the Aurora, Colorado mess.

An AR-15 assault rifle seems a little much for sport hunting so why are they so easy to purchase? And why does an individual need personal armour such as a Kevlar vest? I suppose you might come up with a valid defense for same but it would seem that these are items that are used during an assault on other human beings and have a valid place in the military, police and other civil defense associations.

So the answer doesn’t seem to be to deny people access to guns since they don’t do the killing without the intervention of a person that chooses to pull the trigger. It would make some sense to reduce the potential of a person or groups that is intent on foul gun play by making the possession of a large number of weapons difficult but it is more important that the penalty for misuse matches the crime.

Perhaps the death penalty with a very short appeal process is the only viable choice for violent gun crimes. I’m sure there are lots of those that would disagree but this is only one person’s opinion. You are welcome to yours.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 5 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Excellent handling of a long debated issue. One of the sad facts of life is that most good police work is in the area of catching bad guys, not prevention. It appears this holds true in the area of gun control also.