If You Don’t Support Gun Control, Blood is on Your Hands
Part one of a series exploring gun control
The gun control debate is back in the headlines with the mass shooting in Orlando. The stakes are high, and citizens, politicians, and homeland security professionals are all weighing in on the discussion. These articles explore the positions for and against increased gun control measures in the United States. Where do you stand?
*Counterpoint is here:
If You Don’t Support Gun Control, Blood is on Your Hands
With the increase of mass shootings and high homicide rates in our country, let’s just be blunt: we need stricter gun laws. As homeland security professionals we understand that this is not a real debate on the facts. Yes, it’s important to have a healthy debate and weigh the pros and cons, and to respect opinions (even as we question motivations), but this boils down to a simple question of whether we are willing to stand by and do nothing while citizens continue to die unnecessarily. My answer is NO. We need to stop these false equivalencies and accept responsibility. So here’s why we need regulation for stricter gun control laws to reduce gun deaths:
1. The majority of people support gun control
A majority of adults, including gun owners, want stronger gun control laws. In 2013, a Pew Research survey showed that 83% of all adults — 79% of those being gun owners — approved of background checks for private and gun show sales. The same survey verified that over 56% of adults approve of assault weapon bans and 53% of all adults approve of high-capacity magazine bans. The survey revealed that 90% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill. These are pretty difficult facts to overlook. A majority of the population wants stricter gun laws. This should be easy to understand. Citizens themselves want gun control. Who is it exactly that is saying that they’re speaking for you?
2. Fewer people would commit suicide
We are well aware that there are more ways to commit suicide than with a firearm, but that observation misses the point. The fact is, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guns were used in over half of all suicides between the years of 1999 and 2013. As recently as 2014, a study published by the International Review of Law and Economics supports that gun control could have a direct impact on suicide rates — the data shows that when gun ownership went down in the United States, so did suicide rates. In addition, according to the Military Suicide Research Consortium, a person who wants to to commit suicide is less likely to do so without a gun. Assuming suicides are something we as a society would like to reduce, why do we continue to facilitate ready access to the easiest tools for committing suicide?
3. The Second Amendment requires gun control, it doesn’t forbid it
Those who claim to be channeling our forefathers when justifying the right to own firearms (and irresponsible gun selling practices) are preying on ignorance, at best. If we truly want to discuss the Second Amendment it’s important to realize that it was written and intended to ensure militias could be armed to repel invasions, rebellions, or fight tyranny. The US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right to bear arms four times between 1876 and 1939 outside the context of militia; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed without reasonable controls.
It is not that individuals should not have means to legally own guns in the Constitutional context. That argument is meant to muddy the issue and inflame passions. Those who argue the Second Amendment forbids gun control conveniently gloss over the fact that the Second Amendment specifically calls for a “well regulated Militia.” The special interests that have bastardized the Second Amendment for their own gains, at the expense of thousands and thousands of innocent lives, have perpetuated an unmitigated hoax and a fraud.
4. Countries with gun control laws tend to have lower homicide and suicide rates than the United States
There are many countries that enforce stricter gun laws, yet still manage to have higher gun ownership rates and experience fewer homicides. Gun control is a matter of responsible ownership. For example, Switzerland and Finland require gun purchasers to pass a background check and to obtain a license. Even with these restrictions, Switzerland and Finland rank 3rd and 4th respectively in international gun ownership. In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). As a country that ranks 4th in gun ownership, Finland had a total of 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people). Listen, any homicide and suicide rates are unacceptable, but at least these countries are doing what they can instead of turning a blind eye. In comparison, the United States ranks first in gun ownership and our “permissive” gun laws gave us 12,632 gun homicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people) and 17,352 gun suicides (5.76 deaths per 100,000 people) in 2007. Requiring a background check and obtaining a license won’t prevent all homicides and suicides, we’re really okay with seeing what the results would be and not doing anything?
5. Most massacres utilize currently legally-obtainable weapons
From 1982 to 2012 there were at least 81 public shootings across the country. Eighty one. Did you know that 62 of the shootings and 79% of the guns used between the aforementioned 30 year period were obtained legally? What about 2012 to present? Would it shock you to learn how much that’s grown? Do you have the stomach to look? Some of these tragedies could have been prevented if it was discovered that the buyer was not mentally stable, was a potential supporter of a terrorist organization, or if the person openly expressed threatening rhetoric towards a specific group of people. We knew what to do. We did nothing.
There shouldn’t be a debate here. We’re not talking about taking away everyone’s guns. We’re talking about reasonable regulation for the benefit of our safety and homeland security. We’re talking about being smart and taking care of the innocent and the law-abiding public. We’re talking about acknowledging and addressing a problem based on facts, not rhetoric. This shouldn’t be this difficult.
Shame on the special interests who are willing to trade your safety and your blood for profit, by trafficking not just in weapons, but in fear, and in lies. There is a solution that protects our safety and our freedom — responsible gun control and ownership standards that apply to all.
