Why We Don’t Need Gun Control-Refutation View

Gun control is a highly controversial topic. When discussing the opposing sides, either pro or anti, the conversation can become heated. While researching anti-gun control arguments to try and better understand that point of view, I stumbled across a blog written by Justin A Perry. He makes three main points that I would like to discuss within this post. His stance is clear, anti-gun control and he believes the legalization of guns will do nothing to create a safer and more civilized society.

The first point that he makes is, people cannot be deprived of gun rights because it aids their source of food and will decrease their quality of life. Although many people do hunt to kill animals for consumption, we are not an underdeveloped country in which this is the main source of survival. A study conducted by Responsive Management, shows that over 60% of hunters hunt for sport, bonding, trophy or nature as opposed to the approximate 30% of people who hunt for meat. Also, people who hunt for meat do not claim that this is there one and only source of survival and without it they would die. While many people enjoy freshly hunted meat, it is not a matter of life or death but rather preference.

His second argument claims that just because things are illegal, it doesn’t mean they cannot be obtained. He puts this into the perspective of drugs. Of course, LSD, Cocaine and Heroin are all illegal drugs but can unfortunately be found on the streets of the United States. He then draws the comparison that guns will be found on the streets even if they are illegal. I believe this argument is weak. The drugs he listed above are highly addictive after just one use. If they were legal we would have a much larger epidemic of drugs than we currently do. Making drugs illegal acts as a deterrent. Although it may be possible to find it on the streets, because it is banned, a large number of people abstain from using. This relates to guns as well. If a gun is legal, it is more likely to be used by every day people but once it becomes illegal it will deter the general public from purchasing it. Deterrence theory relates to three concepts, swiftness, severeness and certainty. If anti-gun laws are written clearly and there is strong enforcement of those laws, many citizens will become deterred. This will decrease the overall amount of people who physically own guns. Thus in turn, decreasing the potential for gun violence.

His third argument claims that, guns are not unsafe in households. The only way for a child to get into possession of a gun is by explicitly giving them access or teach them about the gun itself. This argument is extremely false. I recently watched a documentary called, Bully. It follows the lives of children who experience hardships at school. One girl, Ja’meye, was bullied so much that she found her mothers gun and brought it onto the school bus. She then attempted to shoot passengers but was luckily stopped in time. She now is in juvenile detention and will face most of her childhood behind bars. Her mother in the documentary claims she hid the gun and never spoke about the gun itself, where it was or how to operate it. This goes to show that Perry’s argument is not true. Just because we are not verbally teaching our kids about guns, their curious minds can get them into trouble. Children, in compromising situations, may turn to gun violence just like Ja’meye. The pure fact that her mother had that gun is what put Ja’meye behind bars and stripped her of her childhood. We are putting these weapons in front of our youth and presenting the opportunity to commit an act of violence.

Perry’s aggressive stance against gun control may excite others who agree with him but it is important to look at the facts of his arguments. With careful research and consideration it is clear that the anti-gun control claims are protecting a small group of people, those who enjoy guns, and harming the rest of the population. The presence of mass shootings and gun violence has gone too far. We need stricter laws relating to the ownership of guns.

I Used to Think Gun Control Was the Answer: My Research Told Me Otherwise- A Refutation View

In opposition to the enforcement of more aggressive gun control, Leah Libresco, a statistician and former news writer of FiveThiryEight, conducted research on reasons for deaths in America. She analyzed 33,000 lives ended by guns each year and concluded that the best way to prevent these deaths is through interventions. She presented her findings in the article, ‘I Used to Think Gun Control Was the Answer: My Research Told Me Otherwise.’

“The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.”

She continued to analyze these deaths and uses data to support her statements. She mentions that, anually, two thirds of gun related deaths in the United States are suicides and argues that no restriction on guns will make it meaningfully harder for people to use them. She then proceeds to discuss the next largest set of gun deaths. Statistics show, 1 in 5 young men between the ages of 15 and 34 are killed in homicides. She argues that those men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men anyway. She says that their
death would most likely be related to gangs or another kinds of street violence. This argument is contradictory in itself. The most popular way in which gang members commit homicides is via gun. She states these young men are doing to die “anyway”, but the only way to make that statement sound logical would be to prove they are dying from natural causes or other non- gun related issues. She is negating her own argument by basically saying, “they are likely to die by a gun because they are dying by a gun.” Which simply makes no sense. 

After collecting her data to support anti-gun control, Libresco concluded that more tailored interventions were the answer to less shootings, not stricter gun control. She explained that potential suicide victims, women experience domestic abusive, and kids who are approached by danger in the streets are all in danger of guns. However, they require specialized protection in which gun control cannot protect them. She insinuates that older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, do not need gun control to prevent their death. Rather, they need better access to mental health counselors who could care for them and get them help. She is deflecting the issue of gun control and blaming it on mental health, as well as assuming that these men need to be cared for to eliminate the risk of death. Although this statement can be supported, it is ignorant to assume more care is the way to protect people from using a gun to kill themselves. She is describing a utopia that is not obtainable. If everyone could be cured of mental illness by more care, it would have happened by now and less people would commit suicide. She also claims that in order to protect women in danger of specific men, they need to be prioritized by the police, who can enforce restraining orders and restrict these men from buying and owning guns. She argues that men at risk of violence need to be identified before they become violent need to be connected to mentors to help them mentally. This is another faulty argument. As research shows, women in violent and abusive relationships refrain from seeking help from authorities due to fear. It is highly unlikely these women will turn in their spouse, get his gun taken away, and continue or cease being in a relationship. This is another unrealistic solution to end gun violence. 

Libresco’s argument for anti-gun control and her solutions to the issue would not be effective in the real world. It is unrealistic to believe that moral support alone is the solution to limiting deaths involving weapons. Policeman cannot prioritize women who are potential victims of assault when there are a lot of other active crimes they need to attend to. It is also unfeasible to identify every male that could be a potential offender before they commit a crime. We would have to be able to predict the future in order for her argument to work. There are many pros and cons to the enforcement of gun control, however, the data and explanation that Libresco covered may have changed her opinion, but definitely did not change mine.

80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings are Obtained Legally

After a shooting in San Bernardino, California in 2015 authorities investigated the origin of the weapon used. It was found that the caliber assault-style rifles and two semi-automatic handguns were purchases legally by the shooters. This raises the question of how preventable gun violence is under the current fire arm laws in the United States.

 

As you can see from the graphic above, 77% of the firearms used in mass shootings from 1982-2015 have come from legal sources. This not only shows how large scale this problem is but also for how long it has been a problem in our country. This data dates back around 30 years. The regulations on the sale of firearms to citizens must be changed. There are background checks and 72 hour hold periods before a person can obtain a gun but unfortunately other U.S. laws allow for the purchase to go through legally before the wait period and background check have been completed.

There are currently gun violence groups that are pushing for stricter rules regarding the sale of firearms. Such policies include, universal background checks or even personal petitions to stop a specific individual from having a gun. With the current state of gun violence in the United States, it is important to create laws that protect citizens nationwide.