Following the tragic Stoneman Douglas shooting, it is hardly surprising to find anti-gun activists resume the call for stricter gun control, which they say will ensure the safety of American lives. Some have even gone further to suggest the tearing apart or repeal of the Second Amendment. However, evidence tells a different tale. Calling for the abolition of the Second Amendment is a staggeringly misplaced priority that will last years to take effect and would likely fail. How so?
There is no evidence of a relationship between high gun ownership rates and increased crime rate. In fact, the states with the lowest crime rates are those with even more relaxed gun control laws while gun free zones have recorded lots of mass shootings and gun-related crime. Evidently, gun control laws will do little to nothing in the prevention of mass shootings. Instead, the government must now look inwards. The government must now take responsibility and ask themselves some questions.
Data has revealed that most shooters and perpetrators of crime come from broken homes. If so, how can the government help? Have their policies encouraged an increase in the number of broken homes? Are the structures now fostering individual dependence on the government rather than working as a functional family unit? Indeed, have gun free zones achieved what their intended purpose was? A valuable case study would be considering the spate of crimes in states with strict control laws against those with more relaxed laws.
For example, states such as Chicago, New York City and Washington with incredibly strict gun laws have incredibly high rates of gun-related shootings and murder. On the other hand, states such as Idaho, Alaska, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Montana where about 50% of residents own firearms, have recorded the lowest homicide rates.
Sadly, some reporters and organizations hardly want to report incidents where the mere presence of a gun discouraged a criminal from committing a crime. With the government heeding calls for the repeal of the second amendment by systematically disarming citizens and taking sole responsibility for their security, individuals will be exposed to crime. Meaning, the size of an individual should be no yardstick to determine the qualification of such one to possess firearms. Some of these persons may be weak or not as fast as others in defending themselves. Dispossessing them of their right to security will only make them vulnerable to crime, bully, and violence.
As much as it is the government’s duty to care for the welfare and security of every citizen, particular interest must be given to indefensible students. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that our students and teachers alike feel secure while at school. A great way to provide this level of security is by arming every school teacher so long as they feel comfortable with the possession of firearms. Some teachers may be former law enforcement officers that are now in the classroom. We cannot depend on so-called solutions that infringe on people’s liberty, calling for the tearing apart of the second amendment under the guise that government will provide for their security.
Ultimately, total bans on possession of firearms should be off the table. It is impossible to do that. While it remains the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens, individuals must be given the right to defend themselves at home or school – with a firearm if they please. In the same vein, regulations should be put in place to ensure guns are kept away from dangerous people. This can be achieved by thoroughly assessing the records of an individual before such one gains the right to possession of firearms. The Constitution allows this.
Carlos Gonzalez of Carlos Gonzalez Law