On Gun Control

     I would like to take a few moments to express Freedonian views on gun control and why I feel current attempts to curb gun violence are ineffective and counter-productive.

    I can understand those who wish to ban guns, especially handguns and other weapons. They are well intentioned; after all if you could effectively ban guns, we would all be much safer. Criminals would no longer have guns, which would mean other people would not need guns for protection. If it was possible to ensure the removal of guns from society, I would support it.

    However, it is not possible to ban guns, or even certain kinds of guns. The government does not have the power to enforce this ban and ensure criminals will not have these weapons. This conclusion can be supported by looking at other government attempts to ban certain things or remove them from society. The best example of this is the war on drugs. For many, many years the government has attempted to enforce their bans on illegal narcotics. They have invested billions of dollars and put the full force of the police, FBI, DEA, coast guard, and border patrol behind the enforcement of the ban. The US government has also sent billions of dollars to Columbia in an effort to help them stop these drugs at the source. And yet, even with all this effort, it is still relatively easy to acquire drugs in America.
     Similarly, the US government will not be able to adequately prevent the inflow of guns into the country, nor will they be able to detect all people possessing illegal guns. There will always be some people who can smuggle illegal items into the country and people who can keep illegal substances without the knowledge of the authorities.

    Unfortunately, the government will not be able to eliminate guns and create an idealistic society. So, what would be the effects of a government ban on guns? The majority of people in this country are law-abiding citizens. If the government outlawed firearms these people would comply and hand in their weapons. After all, these people have jobs, families, and a stable life; they wonít want to cause trouble or risk having their life go to waste because they didnít comply with the law.
     At the same time, however, there will be plenty of criminals out there who would not turn in their guns, or who would be able to get guns from illegal sources. A ban on guns will be very empowering to criminals. If I am a criminal, and I have a gun, I would be very pleased about a gun ban. Because I would know that I can now rob, rape, or murder with much less risk. I have a gun, no one else on the street will. The police will not be able to prevent crime unless they have an officer on every corner. Police can only respond to a crime while it is in progress or investigate a crime after the fact. In a society with a gun ban, the criminal is the one with all the power and all of the control, and he can be confident that he can commit a crime with much less risk to himself.

    However, contrast this with a society where law-abiding citizens are trained in the use and safe-keeping of firearms, and able to carry them. Now, a criminal faces a much increased risk. There is a good chance that the person he is about to rob or murder will also have a gun, or someone nearby will. A criminal can no longer commit crimes feeling he is safe doing so.
Take one of the more tragic crimes of the past year, the shootings at Columbine High school. If law-abiding citizens were trained in the safe use of firearms and able to carry them, the outcome might have been much different. If there was a teacher or administrator who had a gun, they might have been able to stop the events at Columbine early on, and prevent many deaths. But, the mere knowledge that some of the administration of the school had guns might have prevented the events at Columbine from happening at all. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were powerful that day because they were armed and everyone else in the school was not. Do you think Eric & Dylan would have thought it was fun if there was the possibility that others could shoot back?
    Getting into the mentality of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, I feel that education is the key. I feel that young people should be trained in the safe and responsible use of guns and be made aware of the lethal force they possess. For the most part, young people these days only have experiences with guns through movies, TV, and video games. This causes dangerous romanticizing, glorification, and misinformation about guns. If they are educated on the realities of guns, we could eliminate these mentalities and clearly separate fantasy from reality.

    On another note, the possession of guns by citizens does prevent the rare chance of a government becoming tyrannical. One of the first things Adolph Hitler did when he came to power was ban firearms in the interest of public safety. But public safety was not his intention. The law-abiding citizens of Germany did turn in their guns because they didnít want trouble with the nazi government, they only wanted to live in peace. However, the end result was that the nazi government was given free reign over the people. When the Naziís came for the Jews, Poles, and political enemies, these people were unable to protect themselves or resist.

    It becomes impossible for people to confront a tyrannical government if the vast majority of people are unarmed. Please do not get the wrong impression and think I am associating modern day gun-control advocates with Adolph Hitler. I know that gun-control advocates are good people, and well-intentioned people. They only want a safer society. But, not only do I think a gun ban would be ineffective and counter-productive, there is the small chance that a government could take advantage of the people once they are disarmed.