Guns: The Fine Line Between Too Much Gun, and Not Enough Gun

Gun control has been a hotly debated issue in America, especially after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, when 20 children and 6 adults were killed. Of course, lawmakers, especially the extremely left-wing democrats, think that the best solution to this problem is to severely limit all guns in America. This way, criminals can simply waltz into any building and start shooting it up without fear of retaliation. On the other hand, if the criminal is a good, law abiding citizen, he wouldn’t have guns in the first place, so the U.S. probably doesn’t even need to worry about it. Nevertheless, there are other solutions to gun control in America that do not involve attempting to remove all of the guns, because individuals having guns in America is a constitutional right.

One solution is to simply give everyone in the United States a gun. Everyone. Later on, this legislation could be extended to include family pets, construction equipment, and some species of coniferous trees. Even now, the United States is close to making this suggestion a reality. In just 1996, about 50% of men and 30% of women owned at least one gun (Lott 37). This number is virtually unchanged from 2004. Compared to most other developed nations, this is a huge number. It is also necessary to consider that many of the people who own guns own more than one gun. Realistically, the average number of guns per gun owner is somewhere in the billions. Incidentally, the number of people who own guns in the United States has only been increasing, meaning that perhaps “more gun” is the correct approach after all. For example, in 1988, only about 30% of all citizens owned guns; the same percentage of women who owned guns in 1996 (Lott 38). The reasonable assumption here is that the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was keeping a veritable swarm of zombies from the world, and the United States felt the need to suit up in case there were any zombies around here camping behind walls. There are a number of advantages to giving everyone in the United States a gun, aside from the obvious ones mentioned earlier. For instance, if everyone had guns, certain sports, such as paintball, would be rendered completely obsolete. A backyard romp would resemble a violent militant terrorist attack by the time mom comes out to offer everyone lemonade. In addition, since guns in America are so very hard to come by nowadays, if everyone had guns, everyone would die. America would explode into a violent bloodbath that would make the Rambo movies look like Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. There are a few minor downsides to this plan. Namely, everyone having guns would mean that it would just be too difficult for bank robbers, rapists, and other common criminals to do their God-given jobs. This is unfortunate, and could harm the Democrats in the 2016 election, assuming anyone is still alive to vote.

Since guns kill people, instead of people killing people, it would also be prudent to initiate a system of law for guns, trying them as the monsters they are. For too long, guns have been able to leech off of society and have given nothing but bullet holes and loud noises in return. This is unacceptable. One way to help control this epidemic, one author proposed, is to regulate gun shows. Gun shows are the equivalent of brothels for guns, and are their main place to reproduce, so this solution is sound. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives believes that gun shows are a prime place for black market dealings and should be regulated even more. “The BATF has established rules and regulations for these things they call ‘gun shows.’ The opportunity for the black marketers is that the BATF doesn’t enforce those regulations and there isn’t anyone else to do so. Consequently, there are literally hundreds of ‘gun shows’ scattered around the country where you may rent tables, display your wares, sell what you please to whomever you please; the sale that is made with no records, no questions and no papers, earns the highest sales price” (Burger 127). Essentially, the BATF is upset that they are missing out on taxing guns at these sacrilegious gun shows, and want to find a more efficient way to regulate them. Naturally, people exchanging guns under the table (literally) costs the United States trillions of dollars a year, and, at this rate, will bankrupt the United States by 2014. Thankfully, these wonderful organizations such as BATF are here to ensure that justice is meted out to these vermin.

Of course, no one wants to consider the most heinous solution of all: education. Telling people of the risks and dangers of guns, but still allowing them to own them if they choose to go that route, is simply not acceptable in this day and age. The reason this last-resort solution has not been put into motion is simple: people do not want to be held accountable for their own actions. That is to say, it is far easier to simply blame the tool than to blame the man behind the tool. There are, of course, a few education programs that help to educate students and other potential gun owners as to the dangers and advantages of guns, especially pistols, but these types of programs will never see widespread appeal among the people of the United States lest mass hysteria break out. Of course, this brings into question the necessity of education. Some programs, such as the D.A.R.E. program, educate elementary children about the dangers of drugs, not to entirely prevent their use, of course, but to ensure that students, if they do choose to use drugs, do so responsibly. Naturally, there is no possible way to transfer this concept over to guns, as it is simply not possible to use guns responsibly. The people who do use guns responsibly are just faking it, and often run around like rednecks any chance they get, shooting holes into tin cans.

Guns are dangerous even when serial killers are not part of the discussion. For example, in 1997, 40 children were killed by firearms accidents, compared to 600 in drowning accidents, and 1,100 in motor vehicle accidents (Burger 5). Clearly the firearms are the issue here that needs to be addressed. Indeed, some of the other advantages of guns, such as the fact that, in 2000, an estimated 989,883 U.S. citizens used some form of gun to defend themselves (Agresti and Smith 2). In addition, in 1993, 3.5% of households had used a firearm to defend themselves “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” (Agresti and Smith 3). Considering how many of these lives saved via guns could have easily been young children or other family members, it makes perfect sense to want to restrict guns. Surely, guns must cause in increase in crime. This is of course ignoring the fact that, in a survey of male felons in 11 state prisons, 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim,” while 40% said they decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun,” and 69% said they knew of another criminal who had not committed a crime because the victim had a firearm. So, the only logical conclusion to draw from here is that firearms are evil and should be outlawed, because they clearly save way too many lives for them to serve any practical purpose. Of course, countries that have strict bans on firearms, such as Great Britain, still have plenty of criminals who brandish firearms, because, like most outlawed items, they are relatively easy to acquire on the black market, or via other illegal measures.

As has been evidenced, clearly firearms are extremely dangerous and should be taken away from the irresponsible American people. The behavior of outliers such as he Sandy Hook killer mean that nobody should be allowed to have guns. It should be ignored that firearms in America prevent a large number of lives from being taken, and, even if legislation were passed that outlawed firearms, criminals would simply find another way to acquire since they are criminals, after all. Firearms are a privilege, and a huge responsibility, but in order for the firearm to take care of the citizen, the citizen must take care of the firearm.

Works Cited

Agresti, James D., and Reid K. Smith. "Gun Control Facts." Just Facts, 2008, pp. 2-3

Burger, James B. Can gun control work? Oxford University Press, 2002.

Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.