In the middle of the night, a 76-year-old man is awoken to a series of loud sounds in his home. The title of the article, “Police: Hampton man, 76, shoots intruder in the arm”, by Lauren King, a writer for The Virginian-Pilot, accurately summarizes the incident. The window in the back of the property was broken in. The homeowner quickly notifies the police, but the situation has not dissipated yet. Luckily, he retrieves his pistol in his home and, after the burglar is located, the elderly man shoots the intruder in the arm. After this confrontation, the criminal sprints wounded out of the home, only to be apprehended by the police who were not capable of arriving any sooner. However, the fortunate outcome for this homeowner does not reflect the fate of countless others who died as a result of having no means to protect themselves. Of course, every report of gun violence is unique. Also, the activity of simply keeping guns in the home invites calls for condemnation and monition from other concerned citizens. Having a weapon in the house may bring to mind scenarios of children finding them and unintentionally firing them, or of a distraught family member that is considering suicide and uses the gun as the device for self-termination. However, it is the responsibility of the gun owner to be well-educated on gun safety and to secure the weapons to prevent other family members from accessing them. Placing more emphasis on the current regulation on guns in the United States will not reduce the amount of gun violence in America because possessing and carrying guns will deter those who commit violent crimes with guns and because criminals will still be able to access guns while disregarding the potential restraints that would be placed on those who follow the law.
Simply having the knowledge that a certain house has firearms in it will often make a criminal think twice about invading the property. Having or carrying a gun can also serve as a deterrence to potential criminals. In doing so, the crime may never even happen. In Kennesaw, Georgia, a law passed in 1982 made it mandatory for every home in the city to possess at least one gun. The article, “Gun Ownership – It’s The Law in Kennesaw”, by Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch, gathers multiple reactions and the outcome of the law. Some, including councilman J.O. Stephenson, believed that the law, when first enacted, would cause even more violent crime in the city (Busch and Hamilton). However, even though the law did not have the original intent of deterring crime, many believe that it was because of this law that the total amount of crime, although not high to begin with, was reduced. As a result, the population grew from interest in this effective method of security. This outcome for Kennesaw shows that even if the citizens of the town never used their firearms in self-defense, it was likely that the knowledge of a gun being in every home in the town diffused several plans for crime.
Of course, this is not a foolproof plan to reduce gun violence because every city differs in location, size, concentration, and culture. It is not likely that there is any gang violence in Kennesaw like there is in a lot of major cities of the United States. However, it cannot be said that the current state and federal level gun control will undoubtedly succeed in all areas of the country either. James Wilson, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, made notice in his article, “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer”, that Many western European countries are placing blame on the United States and the National Rifle Association especially for the gun culture and gun violence around the world. However, Wilson states that, “In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States.” And today in 2017, Europe has not evolved into a world free of gun violence, either, as evident in the terrorist attack in France back in 2015 and many others that spread through Europe. So far, at least, it is quite easy to conclude that neither extremes to resolving gun violence will work at the national level.
Although the thought of making the process of accessing firearms more difficult by requiring lengthy and detailed background checks by limiting the type and cartridge size of the gun may seem like a beneficial step toward reducing gun violence in the nation, the only effect it will have is to lower the number of citizens who will use guns as a method for self-defense. Criminals will still have access to sellers in private auctions and they will not bother going through the extra steps to owning a gun like in some heavy gun control states like New York, Connecticut, and California. Gary Rosen, a writer for Commentary and a supporter of moderate gun control, wrote in his article, “Controlling Guns” concerning the inefficiency of current gun control laws at the state level when he stated that, “States like New York have been aggressive in regulating guns within their own borders, yet can only watch helplessly as 67 percent of guns used in crime come from out of state” (Rosen). As seen very clearly in America’s history, just because something is illegal or heavily regulated does not mean that everyone will unconditionally obey the law. Drugs, prostitution, larceny, and homicide are all well-known for being illegal in the United States, yet they continue to plague our nation every day of every year. Alcohol, made illegal with the 18th Amendment, not only didn’t stop people from drinking and selling alcohol, but also increased the amount of crime in America and even inspired the creation of the phenomenon known today as NASCAR. And of course, the 21st Amendment countered the inadequate solution to the issue, because making something illegal, like the possession of fully automatic weapons, larceny, and homicide, does not prevent these crimes from happening in the country. However, simply encouraging everyone to purchase firearms for self-defense will not always produce the results that we so desperately desire. Instead, the process of licensing and registration should be enforced nationally (Rosen), because it does not turn many people away from the idea of owning guns, it does not limit the selection of guns, it makes it easier for law enforcement to confiscate unregistered weapons that could have been used in criminal activity, and it enforces more responsibility with these weapons.
It is true that gun violence has been an ever-present issue in the United States for quite a long time. For some, gun ownership may be a possible solution as a means of self-defense, but this will not bring solace to everyone. For legislators who support gun control, the method of using copious amounts of tax money to perform background checks on gun buyers to prevent criminals or mentally unstable individuals who will find access to guns anyway will only deter those who follow the law from having a means of protecting themselves. It is very evident that current gun control efforts have not made strides to reduce gun violence, and neither has the activity of simply ignoring its existence. Instead of falsely targeting criminals with gun control laws by penalizing all potential gun owners, the federal government should instead institute a policy of mandatory registration of firearms and licensure of gun owners, activities that several gun owners do already.
Works Cited
Burch, David, and Jonathan Hamilton. “Gun Ownership – It’s The Law in Kennesaw.” Gun Ownership – It’s The Law in Kennesaw. Marietta Daily Journal, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.
King, Lauren. “Police: Hampton Man, 76, Shoots Intruder in the Arm.” Virginian-Pilot. N.p., 10 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.
Rosen, Gary. “Controversy – Controlling Guns.” Commentary. 110.5 (2000): 18. Print.
Wilson, James Q. “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Apr. 2007. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.