Well, we have had a rather serious spike in gun violence recently, and there are many thoughts and proposals out there to try and prevent any further violent outbursts and acts. The simplest of thought that pops into pretty much everyone’s mind is that we have to get rid of all of the guns. Sure, logic would dictate that without guns then there would be no gun violence; but I would argue that the people who have acted out in the most publicized bursts of violence are not exactly thinking logically, or soundly. If they were then I would doubt that a logical thinking person, of sound mind and reasoning abilities would think that going on a shooting spree is a sane and logical solution to their problems.
Many, if not all of the articles that have been written about these atrocities seem to go out of their way to tell the readers that the guns used were bought legally. At first I really didn’t give this any thought whatsoever, but then, after a while, this statement of fact seemed to be rather pointed. The authors’, in many instances, seem to just throw that fact out there, you know, to just let the reader’s stew over it for a while. To me, and this is only my opinion, I think the thought that is trying to be provoked is the very thought above, and that is that we have to get rid of the guns. Which as is also mentioned above fails to address the fact that the people that are perpetrating these acts of violence are more than likely not 100% of sound mind and reasoning. I believe that many of the people who are behind these shootings would resort to another means of violence, should there be no guns. There are places in this world where unreasonable and unsound people commit horrendous acts of violence, and they do so without using a gun.
But, for arguments sake, let’s take a look at real life examples where gun ownership is restricted, and even banned. First and foremost I think we need to look at Chicago, where this past Friday there was another rash of violence involving the use of firearms, wounding 13 people. This has been the summer of shootings in one of my favorite cities in this country, and while it cannot be said that these shootings don’t get media attention, because they do, but I think it is fairly safe to say that the level of coverage is decidedly less than the instances of violent outbursts in wide and disparate locales. So, why doesn’t Chicago’s summer of violence get more press? Well, I believe it is because to give it more media attention would illuminate one thing, and that is that strict gun laws have little to no effect on curbing violent crime, and appear to actually lead to a higher instance.
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in this country, and yet there they are, with a higher instance of violent crime than New York, and Las Angeles. Rest assured though, because Mayor Rahm Emanuel is on the case. After taking time off from his busy schedule of chastising and barring a chicken shop from expanding in his fiefdom, the Honorable Emanuel has finally decided that he should now address the violence that has plagued (t)his city for months now. His solution? Well, for starters it is to try and persuade Chicago’s citizenry to speak up and identify those who are the shooters. This is because in many instances the victims do know who shot them, but they don’t want to be called a snitch. Will this work? I don’t know, but one way to curb the violence is to catch those who perpetrate violence, and if the authorities don’t get assistance then they have little chance in apprehending those criminals. His other solution? Well it is none other than to further the crackdown on gun ownership, and pass even more ordinances and laws to limit gun ownership, saying; “…but we have to pass stronger gun laws in this state. We’re not talking about repealing conceal/ carry, but making sure we have a tougher set of laws dealing with assault weapons and other types of guns.”
Umm, okay, but here’s the thing. How many of these shootings in Chicago do you think were committed with a legally purchased gun? I’m going to guess hardly any. If they were then it should be pretty easy to track down the owners of these guns, based on their registration. How many of these shootings were committed with an assault rifle? Again, I am going to guess hardly any. So, the bigger question is, how are tighter gun laws going to stop, let alone limit any of the violent acts that are currently happening in Chicago? Once again, I am going to have to guess that it won’t.
Then there are many of the countries in the Middle East, where ALL gun ownership is largely illegal, so the disenfranchised, and disturbed resort to strapping on bombs and terrorizing the public through the detonation of those bombs; killing as many, if not more, than if they had tried to use a gun.
So, if we got rid of the guns then those who are prone to fits of rage, like the one in Aurora, the one at the Family Resource Council, and others, then these unstable individuals would probably resort to some other form of violent outburst, so banning guns doesn’t solve the violence, just transfers it – but hey, at least they aren’t using guns though; right? And the enactment of strict gun laws does little to nothing to stop violent crime, where the guns used are not acquired legally. I’m sorry, I have to ask, how then does gun control legislation actually solve any of these issues? The short answer is that it hasn’t and it doesn’t. The issues run deeper than guns; in the former instance it has to do with people having such pent up angst at something, whatever that “something” is, they feel violence is their only recourse. In the later instance, in Chicago, the violence is, by and large, related to other criminal activities where those perpetrating the violence have already demonstrated their wonton disregard for the rule of law. So, again, I don’t think that more gun laws actually solves either problem.
For the record, I do not own, nor do I particularly like guns, but I am not for the prohibition of legally owned firearms. The vast majority of those who LEGALLY buy, and own firearms are respectable, law abiding individuals, and odds are you know more than few of those individuals.
If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month. (Theodore Roosevelt)