Gun Control: Personal Protection vs. Public Safety

Dario Maldonado, Staff Writer

It is a divisive topic, and for many years now it has been intensely debated by two groups of people who claim that they are just looking out for themselves and those they care about. The issue is, of course, guns.

In the gun debate, one side believes that, by banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and creating more restrictions on purchasing guns, they can save lives and avoid tragedy. The other side believes that owning and carrying a gun by their side means that they can personally prevent a tragedy from happening. It is a debate of personal safety vs. public safety. Both sides have reason to be passionate about this topic, but those in favor of excessive gun control simply do not see the benefits that firearms can bring.

The surge in interest in this debate can be linked to one particular event: the infamous 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado that took the lives of 24 and left 70 injured. This tragedy is the first in the recent string of mass shootings that have been highly covered by the media. Since this tragedy, many other shootings have worked to spark even more heated debate and widen the divide between gun advocates and gun critics.

However, a closer look at the statistics of mass shootings reveals that – while there is no doubt that these shootings were tragic – they are scarce.

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, a total of 199 people have been killed in mass shootings since 2009. Mass shootings, by definition, are instances where four or more people are killed in a public space at around the same time. According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 15,000 homicides occur yearly. Taken together, these statistics show that the tragic deaths that occurred in mass shootings account for only 0.22% of murders in the last six years.

To an anti-gun control advocate, gun control means taking away freedom from the American people. It means taking away peace of mind and leaving one-third of Americans without their sense of security. According to the NBC news reporter Martha C. Wright, “It’s been sadly proven time and time again: Mass shootings are good for gun sales.” Wright goes on to say, “After the Sandy Hook School shooting in 2012, and again after the San Bernardino workplace shooting last December, firearm purchases shot up.” The truth is, tragedies create an increase in gun sales. This is because people feel safer with guns on them, and events like the tragic deaths of almost 50 people at the hands of a lone gunman in Orlando bring this feeling to the forefront. A ban on firearms will only weaken the American people and leave them more vulnerable to criminals and perpetrators.

A common argument made by the gun-control group is that, if an emergency happens, people should just call the police. According to the American Police Beat, police take, on average, 10 minutes to arrive at an emergency call. Anyone who has ever been in an emergency situation knows that the opportunity to actually call the police is rare and that 10 minutes is an eternity. In just five minutes, a perpetrator may have already killed someone and left the scene. A firearm cuts out the middleman and gives one a direct defense against a perpetrator.

Another issue regarding gun control is the interpretation of Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that there should be a well-regulated group of citizens, and that, as citizens, we have the right to keep and carry firearms with us. It also means that the government is strictly forbidden from restricting that right.

One area that is often discussed, regarding gun control, is background checks. Background checks do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and should be looked into further.

However, while background checks are not an infringement, banning firearms is, which, by definition, includes rifles, pistols, or other portable guns. Recently, President Obama made a speech at the White House to the people of the U.S., stating his plans for stricter gun control. In an undeniably emotional speech in January, President Obama stated that it was our right to bear arms, but he hinted that he was going to try to do more. He added that people also have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that those rights were stripped away from the victims of mass shootings when they were killed by a bullet from a gun.

President Obama’s correct in saying that their rights were stripped away, but their rights were taken by lunatics who managed to get their guns through loopholes in the legal system. Obama hinted that we should trade our right to bear arms, for safety. The banning of a gun is clearly unconstitutional and, if this should happen, then the American government can expect major backlash from the American people. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.”

Gun-control advocates either can’t see or choose to not see that, by banning firearms such as pistols, the government is ripping apart the fabric that holds this nation together. A better way to treat the disease that is gun violence is not to pass a law banning firearms because criminals obviously don’t obey laws. Criminals will find illegal ways of obtaining guns, whether they are imported from other countries or stolen; they will find other ways to carry out any demented plans. Eligible, law-abiding citizens who want to legally obtain guns should not be denied.

A law banning firearms would leave the average gun-owner vulnerable to attacks. I agree with Obama that the U.S. should have a form of gun control, but not in the excessive amount that most gun-control advocates want. Sales online as well as at gun shows should be banned. Buyers should come in person to purchase firearms, and sellers should perform thorough background checks as well as be the final decider whether or not someone should be able to purchase a firearm.

If the person has a criminal record, is mentally ill, or has malicious intent, then the seller can deny selling him or her a firearm. Sellers should also have a license and should frequently be reevaluated to ensure that they are capable of selling guns.