


|
Why Gun Control Laws Kill
by Nina Camoriano
It is important for the government to protect everyone from gun violence. That
is why the laws of the United States must stop disarming the victims. In many
cases, from the legendary Columbine and Hawaii shootings to the Washington D.C.
Sniper Case, a person with a gun has gone on a rampage, shooting and killing
many innocent victims. One’s first instinct may be to blame the guns and to
demand more laws to make it more difficult for people to acquire them, but take
a closer look at this approach. All of the shootings mentioned above had
another thing in common: the victims were all unarmed. Because the killings
took place in areas where there were no weapons allowed, the murderers knew that
they would be free to shoot whomever they pleased without any resistance. The
Columbine shooting occurred in a school, where guns were forbidden. The Hawaii
shooting occurred at a business where guns were forbidden. The sniper case
happened in Washington, D.C., which has some of the strictest gun-control laws
in the country. This is all clear proof that more gun control laws do not
reduce the number of shootings and do not accomplish the goal of protecting
innocent people. So what really can be done? In order to make good
public policy decisions that really will improve safety, one should examine
history, understand the myths behind the statistics, and study the minds of
criminals.
Studying history helps prevent the repetition of mistakes, and
taking away the right to self-defense is one such mistake. The right to
self-defense is one of the most basic of human rights. In fact, it is enshrined
in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,
which states that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.” The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect
themselves against a corrupt government. The first thing Adolf Hitler did when
he wanted to take power was to take away people’s guns. “This year will go
down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun
registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the
world will follow our lead into the future,” said Hitler. This sounded
wonderful to the German people, but what was the result? Horrible suffering and
the slaughter of millions of innocent people, who were left defenseless once
they had given up their guns. Here is another disturbing eye-opener from good
old Hitler. “What good fortune for government, that people do not think.”
Many people, fortunately, are thinking—sorry Adolf—but the
information on which they are basing their decisions is skewed. Many people are
concerned about the safety of their children, and thus, one main argument many
gun control law advocates make is that it is more dangerous to have a gun around
the house than to be unarmed. But that simply is not true. Many people have
heard horrendous statistics about child death rates due to shootings. These
statistics are misleading however, because they include gang violence among
17-19 year olds—not just household safety. In fact, Dave Kopel, of the
Independence Institute, and his colleagues did some research and found that more
children under the age of 5 drown in 5-gallon buckets each year than are
harmed in firearm accidents. Besides, how safe would a child feel if she knew
that a burglar could just waltz into her house and shoot her while her parents
were unable to do anything to defend her? Also, just because you were allowed
to have a gun in your home does not mean that you would have to. Whether or not
you own a gun would be your choice, and it would be up to you to act responsibly
and keep the gun out of reach of what should be your most precious
possessions--your children.
Well, since gun control does not make innocent people safer, what
can be done? Mr. John R. Lott Jr., senior research scholar at the Yale
University Law School, has proposed a solution. He writes in his book,
entitled More Guns, Less Crime, about a study that was done between the
years of 1988 and 1992. The study found that states that allowed people to
carry concealed weapons saw a dramatic decline in the crime rate. Lott’s study
shows that criminals are not the stupid stereotypes we make them out to be
through Hollywood and TV. Criminals will weigh the advantages and disadvantages
of a situation. If they think chances are good that they are going to be shot,
they are far less likely to commit the crime in the first place. Still, many
people argue that taking all the guns away is a sure way to rid the world of gun
violence. However, it is impossible to get rid of all the guns in the world.
What is, after all, the definition of a criminal? Criminals are lawbreakers.
They break laws. This means that, no matter how many laws are enacted,
the ‘bad guys,’ murderers and thieves, will always find a gun because they do
not really care how many laws they have to break to get one. In truth, gun
control laws only make the world a safer place for criminals—not for innocent
people, and if these laws are eliminated, the world will truly be much safer.
A prime example of this was a shooting recently in a West
Virginia law school. A student came in with a gun and started shooting, but he
was stopped when another student ran to his car, got his gun, came back, and
held the shooter at gunpoint. This allowed the other students to tackle the
shooter, preventing him from killing more people. Had the victims—the
students—had no guns present with which to defend themselves, this event could
have led to the slaughter of many more innocent people. It was the gun in the
hands of a potential victim that ended the violence.
Gun control laws would be a joke if they did not result in the
deaths of so many innocent people. Lawbreakers obviously will not abide by
them, and, in the meantime, honest citizens must go around without a means of
defense. Since it is impossible to rid the world completely of guns, the next
best thing we can do is to allow potential victims to protect themselves.
|