Why Gun Control is Not the Solution


Owning guns is a citizens’ natural right and should not be infringed upon.

Donny Robbins, Staff Writer

Gun control is a very partisan issue, normally with Democrats wanting to restrict or get rid of guns and Republicans believing in the second amendment that allows citizens to keep their guns.  

The entire idea behind increasing gun control is to make people feel safe; but, in reality, it only gives the perception of safety. I found that there is no correlation between higher homicide rates and higher gun ownership. In fact, the data argues the opposite. A graph on the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the trend between gun ownership and homicide is a slightly inverse line, meaning the more guns a country has the fewer homicides.

In 1976, Washington D.C. banned all new guns from being purchased and required the rest to be registered. The homicides that year were 188, which grew to 369 in 1988, and then 454 in 1993. The reason behind the failure in gun control: shooters are less likely to shoot at people who will fight back. Around 98% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones.

The discussion about types of guns being banned, like an assault weapon, is a slow approach to ban all guns. Where do we draw the line?

According to Merriam Webster, “assault weapon” refers to any automatic or semiautomatic firearms, especially assault rifles. With such a broad definition, this could include a small caliber handgun like a .22. In other words, if we banned all assault weapons, even the less dangerous guns would be banned.

Banning assault rifles would not do anything as rifles are only responsible for 3.4% of gun homicides. Even in mass shootings handguns are more commonly used than rifles. There are even more knife deaths than rifle deaths. We have already tried an assault weapon ban, which did not have any impact on gun violence. A ban on all these guns would not stop crime, just infringe on the rights of Americans.

Additionally, citizens have the right to bear arms under the second amendment: “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.” Some people interpret “well-regulated” as government control, but, to me, it means well-regulated or operating properly, like a clock.

The purpose of the second amendment is to give people the power to rebel against a tyrannical dictator or deter a government from infringing on rights. Adolf Hitler was elected under a Democratic government, showing that evil leaders can gain power and need to be checked with an armed militia. Dictators are able to gain more power when citizens have fewer rights, such as the right to bear arms.

Even if the government ordered a wide confiscation of guns, criminals could still obtain them illegally, leaving other citizens defenseless. Thus, keeping the right to bear arms is vital to the freedom of America.

Gun control is targeting the tool rather than the person. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. There is no use in taking guns away from good citizens when there is no solid evidence for gun control succeeding.

The change needed to slow crime rates is not going to be solved by the government but through individuals. Single parenthood is a major factor in kids having a unstable family life which leads to crime. In my opinion, individuals keeping a full time job, graduating high school, and waiting to have children until after marriage would have a more positive impact than taking guns away from citizens.