Gun Regulation - Useless and Futile

January 12, 2013
The amount of shootings that I can remember from memory is sad. Those tragic events seem to be happening more and more frequently. This type of national issue prompts both society and government to take action.

The current action that the federal government is taking to attempt to stop mass shootings is ineffective. Proposals have been made to restrict magazine size, ban certain weapons, and some extremists (Piers Morgan) have even suggested eliminating guns altogether. The issue stems from everyone's unique belief of the source of the problem: is it the weapon, or is it the individual?

Murder is a crime - a crime far worse than illegal gun ownership. If an insane individual is willing to kill many people, why would a gun law deter them from purchasing a deadly weapon? It wouldn't. A complete gun ban would only disarm law-abiding citizens - the criminals would illegally purchase a gun to conduct their illegal activities.

Groups that push for strict gun legislation tend to point to statistics left and right. In the modern world, so many statistics exist that one can be found to support any side. It's not as if the statistics support one side or the other. Abolishing guns or restricting the capacity at which they could be owned will not achieve anything. Far too many people like to operate based upon principle. If all of the guns in the world could magically disappear with a piece of legislation, the abolishing of guns would be the greatest thing ever. That can't happen though - guns exist.

The gun or weapon does not commit the crime. So many people legally own weapons for their own personal protection. Proponents for gun regulation may suggest that citizens don't need guns because we have a police force. Often times, the police are simply too far away. Too often we think that bad situations will never happen to us. Why not be prepared and have a gun at the ready? Gun owners don't own a gun expecting to use it; they own a gun in order to be prepared for a situation in which the gun's usage is necessary. If guns are abolished, citizens will be unable to be prepared in the event of an emergency. The criminal will have the upper hand.

To many, eliminating high-ammunition magazines may sound like a fair compromise. However, if we look at what a law like that would actually accomplish, we realize that the legislation is simply a waste of time. Again, legislation like this works upon theory. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean an individual won't get their hands on it. As a society, we're focusing too much attention on attempting to ban the weapons used by individual shooters. It may seem like an effort to prevent such from happening in the future, but it really isn't.

The abolishing of guns would do harm rather than good. Law-abiding citizens would be disarmed, and criminals would be given the upper hand. They could commit crimes without fear of being attacked from the gun of an individual protecting their home.

Laws regarding high-ammunition magazines and assault weapons would simply be futile and useless. While their only application is for sport and military expeditions, their banning wouldn't prevent anything. Shooters could still attack and kill people. Why focus on legislation that is simply a waste of time?

The action that we do need to take is action regarding the personal responsibility of gun owners as well as gun sellers. Owners need to be sure to keep the gun in solely their possession, unlike Adam Lanza's mother. Salesman need to be sure that the individuals they are selling weapons to are not mentally insane. Insanity has been a consistent trend with the shooters. They certainly should not have easy access to weapons, whether it be through purchase or "borrowing" from an irresponsible relative.

The rest of society has proved that they are responsible enough to own guns. They are able to use the weapons they own in order to protect themselves. They realize that a dangerous situation can happen at any time, and it's best to be ready.

Let's end all the useless regulation. Schools actually mean "shooter-free zones" when they say "gun-free zones". Imagine what could have been done if a teacher had been able to shoot down Lanza. The lives of children would have been saved.

Instead, our society is choosing to allow the fear of guns to dictate our legislation. The only thing to be afraid of is mentally ill individuals - not the weapons they are bearing.

Let's keep the gun rights that we currently have, and expand the issuing of concealed carry licenses. Let's remove "gun-free" school zones. End the purely optimistic and theoretical approach to gun legislation. Let's instead initiate social change based upon heightened responsibility.

Join the Discussion

This article has 2 comments. Post your own now!

YoungLibertarian said...
Feb. 27, 2013 at 5:15 pm
For some reason I just got an email notification of your comment, but I'll still respond now. I would only be supportive of background check laws if  it was proved that the all avenues for purchasing weapons were through legitimate vendors. I don't think past criminals would bother to even purchase a gun at a legitimate venue. If no black markets exist, I would be fine with some sort of background check law, though it should occur at the state level. Right now I'm not convin... (more »)
DuctTapedDuck said...
Jan. 21, 2013 at 11:25 am
Hey YoungLibertarian, I just have a couple of questions/statements about your article. Before I begin, a disclaimer: though I am not extremely left leaning on the political spectrum, I still do consider myself a social Democrat, so my views will most likely conflict with yours.  First is the question of whether or not you would support certain restrictions on gun control that may not be as radical as the total abolishment of guns, such as stricter background checks and better integratio... (more »)
Site Feedback