Arts & Entertainment Editor
In the wake of another mass-shooting tragedy, Americans want to find a solution to the ongoing problem of gun violence. The obvious reaction is banning assault rifles or other firearms. Unfortunately, history demonstrates that this will not help the situation.
So, what is the goal of these potential gun-banning laws? These laws aim to bring down the crime rate, limit gun availability to criminals, and make the country safer as a whole. Sadly, laws often do not stop those who are intent on committing crimes.
It is easy to look at a terrible misuse of guns and say that stronger firearm laws would have prevented the situation. However, time and time again we are shown that criminals tend to disregard these kinds of laws.
In the most recent example of violent gun usage, the perpetrator was not acting in accordance with gun legislature. Contrary to popular belief, Adam Lanza broke three gun control laws in Connecticut to carry out his plan. One – he was 20 years old even though Connecticut law says that you must be 21 to possess a handgun. Two – if you own a handgun, you must have a permit to carry it on your person. Three – it’s illegal to carry a firearm onto public or private elementary or secondary school property. Would a few more rules have stopped him?
We need to realize that prohibition of alcohol didn’t work in the 1920s, and prohibition of guns won’t work now. Although some may believe that strict laws deter criminals from committing crimes, prohibition in any form often encourages a less-than-ideal result. The ban on alcohol only increased the potency of drinks. Because casual drinking was outlawed, people resorted to illegally drinking whiskey and fortified wine with a more than 150% increase of alcohol in drinks of the past. In Rochester, New York, twice as many speakeasies were in operation than saloons which the government had closed. Clearly, prohibition didn’t work then. So why should it now?
England had a mass shooting in 1998 which preceded a near-total ban on firearms ownership. Within a decade of that ban, however, crime with handguns had doubled. That’s England though, right? Americans are far more honest and trustworthy. Maybe our criminals will choose to abide by the law.
In theory, a ban on guns is a great idea. If no one has weapons, then no one gets hurt. However, guns have already been invented, and can’t simply disappear. Banning firearms means that criminals will keep their unregistered guns and those who follow the law will be left unarmed. Robberies or attempted homicides will become unstoppable. Do you have faith that more gun laws will convince a robber to stay away from your home?
In contrast, Switzerland has maintained fewer gun restrictions. Despite being a neutral country, guns are heavily incorporated into Swiss culture. Why does this work? In a nation of only 8 million people, there are 4.5 million guns in circulation. Surprisingly, the gun homicide rate was still lower, as of last year, than in the U.S. This is strongly because of Switzerland’s recognition of the safety and responsibility that must be taken into account when owning a firearm.
Perhaps instead of a ban on guns, we should consider becoming better educated on proper firearm usage by facts and less by gory movie portrayals. We should encourage those who own guns to take firearms safety courses and gun distributors to consider mental health when selling to customers. We should take a stand for our rights and refuse to become a defenseless public.
