Gun Control Is Not the Answer
Anyone who is not brainwashed or biased, and considers the facts, should realize that gun control is not the answer to the problem of violence in America. There are several different gun control proposals, but none of them tackle the real problems.
First of all, gun control laws ignore the fact that criminals don't obey laws. It makes no difference to a madman planning a mass murder whether or not the tools he plans to use are legal. There are already so many illegal guns in the U.S., not to mention the rest of the world, that trying to make them less accessible through legislation is a naive but hopeless attempt.
Let's examine some of the current gun control proposals. Probably the one most in the public eye is the "assault weapons" ban, along with the ban on "high capacity" magazines. First there is an obvious flaw in the designation "assault weapon". While the public thinks of assault weapons as fully automatic rifles like machine guns, the gun banners use the word to describe semi-automatic rifles that only fire one shot per trigger pull, if they have only a few tactical, or "military-style" cosmetic features. This popular misconception is purposely exploited by the gun control advocates. Josh Sugarman of the VPC is quoted by the NSSF: "The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." But the fact is that these guns operate exactly the same as non- "assault-style" semi-automatic, legal firearms, and actually are not as powerful as many of the big game hunting rifles.
Common sense precludes the notion that cosmetic features have any bearing on the "lethality" of a particular weapon. (Not to mention that many of the proponents of an "assault weapons" ban don't even know the use of various features that they demonize. Case in point – the Chicago Tribune published a diagram of an AR-type rifle, pointing out the "dangerous" features. They had the sling swivel marked as a "bayonet mount/grenade launcher"!) Most of the features, for example, tactical stocks, can be added or removed easily, changing the gun from a "legal" to illegal" without changing it's firepower. Some of the features provide easier handling and more control over the firearm, making them particularly suited for smaller shooters, and enhancing safety. (For a full explanation of assault weapons, visit http://www.assaultweapon.info.)
Along with an "assault weapons" ban goes a ban on "high capacity" magazines. Usually the number of rounds is set to 10 or less, a random number which has no real basis in fact. "Who needs 30 rounds for deer hunting?" is the common refrain. But this isn't about hunting. Many pistols commonly used for self-defense are designed with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. (and despite what Joe Biden says, in many situations a double-barreled shotgun is not the right weapon for personal defense, especially for women.) These guns would be made illegal by such a ban. Also, in the stress of home invasion,accuracy is diminished. A few shots more than the arbitrary number of 10 may easily mean the difference between life and death. There are many other valid uses of "high capacity" magazines as well.
But if banning "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines prevents mass murders, that should trump any hypothetical personal defense situation, right?
Not exactly. The last assault weapons ban did not preven Columbine; in fact according to the research report submitted to the DOJ< it had little if any effect on violent crime, since those types of weapons are used only rarely in crimes anyway. Joe Biden himself admitted that none of hte proposed gun control bills will affect the probability of another mass murder. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/31/16794835-biden-new-gun-controls-likely-wont-end-shootings?lite
Criminals have many tools at their disposal. Double- barreled shotguns, which Biden favors, can easily be used to mow down scores of people with one blast. Bombs can be made with common ingredients for the same purpose. And if the criminals insist on using "assault weapons," they can easily obtain them illegally.
"Universal background checks" is a popular proposal. After all, everyone agrees that we need to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. The fact is that "universal background check" really means gun registration to the gun ban crowd. (Chuck Schumer accidentally admitted that!) We already have a background check system, but criminals still manage to get their weapons. Until the current NICS system is used to it's full potential, with all agencies reporting crimes and mental illness, it makes no sense to add greater scope to it. Besides criminals and madmen don't care whether they obtain weapons legally or illegally. Straw purchasing is already a crime, yet it still happens frequently. Universal background checks are just another attack on law abiding gun owners, and pave the way for registration(which leads to confiscation).
Gun registration is another proposal that won't reduce violent crimes. Does anyone actually think that criminals will register their guns? Or that they will balk at stealing registered guns? Not to mention that it is a fact of history that gun registration leads to confiscation. (Even in the US – In NY City in the 90's, lawfully owned semi-automatics were confiscated using the information from the long-gun registrations enacted in 1967.)
"Even though the laws are only partly effective," some people argue,"they are worth passing if even a few lives are saved." But how many thousands of innocent lives would be lost because of those laws? Guns (many of which would be made illegal) are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection. Not all these occurrences would have resulted in the death of the potential victims, of course. But many of these cases are attempted rapes, and home invasions by armed intruders. So it is reasonable to assume that many more lives are saved by the legal use of firearms, than innocent lives lost to gun violence. Especially because the majority of gun deaths are gang-related. Obviously, no amount of laws will stop the gangs.
The gun ban crowd has waited eagerly for a tragedy like Newtown, so they can impose their hatred of guns on everybody. Many politicians use gun control as a way to make it look like they are"doing something," so they can avoid the real issues. Meanwhile, innocent children and adults will continue to be killed.
Comments
Black skin is the answer. The safest thing to be is a black male. So you can give yourself more protection by changing your skin color. Or by having a black male friend with you.
For females having a black boyfriend is very good for protection. Just try to find a good one.
- AUTHOR
That first assault weapons ban had little or now effect on violent crime. Trying to ban the most commonly owned guns that law-abiding citizens have is not an answer to stopping criminals from getting anything they want. It is only a fist step to a total gun ban, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that.
Yes I do believe in responsible gun ownership. This is not what the current gun control proposals are all about. It is a typical media ploy to pretend that its all about responsible gun ownership, trying to cover up the fact that it is really all about control, of law-abiding citizens, who have never hurt anyone.
We already have a background check system in place, but it is not being used to its full potential. Many federal agencies are not reportingeveryone they should be reporting, and due to all the "privacy" laws, many mental health patients also are not being put on the list. and even when the background check does flag forbidden persons, most of the time this is not followed up.
I will check out your hubs, they sound interesting.
You say Gun Control is not the answer. What do you think is the answer?
I believe in the gun control that we had under President Bill Clinton, the ban that GWB allowed to expire and would not renew.
I believe in background checks, to make sure insane, unstable, crooks and murderers don't get a permit for a gun.
As far as guns are concerned, I grew up with guns, all were for protection and hunting, that was the only way my grandfather could feed 6 hungry kids.
Read my hub "When A Gun For Protection." Or " Mama and the Prowler."
But let me make myself clear. If someone breaks into my home, they are fair GAME.
I believe in responsible gun ownership. From your writing I don't know where you stand.
- AUTHOR
There is always a balance that must be preserved between freedom and security. Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people today want to give up freedom for a chance at security, even though government security is bogus in the long run.
There's one thing I'd like to mention about Japan's Conviction rate, It's absolutely atrocious. One of the premier defense attorneys in Japan had TWO wins in TWENTY years. TWO, and that's a 'fantastic' record. Once accused most of the time it's better to just plead guilty than to try to defend yourself. Circumstanial evidence, hearsay and so on are accepted as 'valuable' evidence. Japan did NOT have a jury system for years and only recently have things improved somewhat.
U.S.S.R. had little street crime because of a highly oppressive Government. One step out of line you could be executed. More people died under Stalin than under Hitler.
When the guns are taken oppression by the government is sure to follow. I'd rather deal with crime and be able to check the government than to allow another Nazi Germany or U.S.S.R... Or Soviet China... Or North Korea or...
Furthermore the differences in societies between the U.S. and other nations is DRASTIC. How many sub-cultures can France claim? Now how many does the U.S. have the ability to claim?
- AUTHOR
Thank you all for your comments. I wish I could find a way to make Hubpages automatically approve my comments. I work a full time job and can't be on the computer 24-7 to approve comments right away. So I want to appologize in advance if it takes some time for anyone's comments to actually be posted.
"we don't want the US to become just like one of a hundred different countries, and lose her own unique identity of freedom and independence."
Yeah, we as in you and I but anymore "we" is so divided there is no longer "we" when refering to America ... there is we, who care mainly about freedom, we who care mainly about freestuff and them who don't care enough about anything to even vote.
Thanks for a well reasoned hubpage and welcome to hubpages. :-)
The Soviet Union had little street crime. Perhaps Kathleen would like us to be more like them.
The Japanese have a 99 percent conviction rate of criminals. They also have no 4th and 5th Amendment protection for the citizens. Perhaps Kathleen would like us to be more like them.
The Jews were forbidden from owning guns in Germany in 1934. There was very little crime rate amoung the Jewish community. Perhaps Kathleen would like us to be more like 1934 Germany.
There are lots of countries we could emulate, eh.
You mean the civilized world that brought us two world wars in the past few years, the dictatorship of the Soviet Union, the wonders of Communist China and North Korea, and, of course, the joys of merry old England where stage singers get arrested and charged with hate crimes for singing "Kung Fu Fighting."
Or civilized countries where the U.S. is not even in the top ten countries in total rapes when France, Germany, Sweden and Spain are?
Or civilized countries where the U.S. is not even in the top ten countries in kidnappings where Canada, Portugual and Australia are?
Or civilized countries where the U.S. is not even in the top ten countries in illegaql drug use where United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Italy, Poland and Japan are?
Or civilized countries where the U.S. is not even in the top ten countries in burglaries where Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Iceland and Spain are?
Or civilized countries where the U.S. is not even in the top five countries in assaults but Sweden, Austraila and New Zealand are?
Yeah... we want to do just what those lists of civilized countries all do.
- AUTHOR
Thank you for your comment.
The trouble with trying to compare America to other countries is that there are a lot of fundamental differences that contribute to the crime problem. For example, the US has a lot more larger cities, where the crime is usually concentrated, than most other countries. A lot of good could be done by combating the inner city problems hat contribute to crime. Another problem is that America has alway stood apart from other countries as being different. so while it is good to get possible ideas from other countries, we don't want the US to become just like one of a hundred different countries, and lose her own unique identity of freedom and independence.
Other industrialized countries don't have the overwhelming problem we have here in America. What do they do differently? Let's do that. We don't have to invent the wheel. Other countries have already invented it. Why don't we just follow their lead?
10