Gun Control, is a Compromise Possible?

The debate surrounding gun control is an entrenched battlefield now. Both parties are dug in not moving in their views, ideas or beliefs. So what happens now? Nothing, one bill gets proposed and is shot down, another is raised in response to the opposite party’s bill and that is shot down and a clear definition of gun control is never reached. This is not healthy for our nation and the people in our nation. Mainly because there are larger things to be worried about in our country at the moment.

Some of the key questions that are being shot back and forth across congress and our country are generally covered by these:

1. Does gun control reduce crime?
2. If the 2nd amendment can be trampled so easily, how many other amendments and rights can be trampled?
3. Who does this conflict actually impact?
4. Do guns kill people or do people kill people?
5. Is a compromise possible?

As these questions are addressed and covered, I also greatly encourage those who want to contribute to raise more questions on this issue and further the development of a compromise.

Question one: Does gun control reduce crime?

The generic answer to this answer is no, depending on your view. Some people believe that guns cause the crimes attributed to them. To prove my first point, we need to look at the statistical evidence.

According to James Agresti of justfacts.com, “Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.”

This first example shows that even if a region like Washington D.C. bans hand guns, the crime rate goes up. A correlation look at this would show that a gun ban only takes guns away from those who are trying to defend themselves, thus keeping the guns in the hands of criminals who use them to commit violent crimes.

Agresti goes on further in his article to state that, “In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been ’scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.’” And that, “In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms.”

So, what these two studies showed that potential crimes were deterred with the use of a firearm and that during a statistical review of 1997, out of the approximate 7, 927, 000 crimes that were committed, only 691,000 used firearms to commit them.

With the statistical evidence presented here, the only answer to this question is a resounding no, gun control does not reduce crime, it in fact has the opposite effect, where guns are banned, crime increases.

Question two: If the 2nd amendment can be trampled so easily, how many other rights can be trampled?

This question should not just worry people in one party or another, this should be concern of both. If the 2nd amendment were wiped away, what would stop congress from stripping more and more rights away from us? Already this issue has arisen in St. Louis Missouri.

According to the Washington Time’s article, TSA detains official from Ron Paul group.

“Mr. Bierfeldt was attending his organization’s regional conference in St. Louis and said he was keenly aware, as the situation unfolded March 29, of a controversial report issued to Missouri law enforcement officials intended to identify members of radical militia members. “Militia members most commonly associate with third-party political groups,” said the report, issued Feb. 20 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. “It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.” Mr. Bierfeldt was carrying Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers and other campaign literature.”

This is just one example of the weakening of the amendments. Once an attack on one is successful, attacks on others become possible. Mr. Bierfeldt was using his right to free speech. Also the people of St. Louis Missouri were labeled as militia extremists if they showed a bumper sticker for Ron Paul. These grievances are unacceptable and wouldn’t have been tolerated if advances on our 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, have not already been made.

The moral of this story is that if one right comes under attack, i.e. the right to bear arms, then all rights come under attack, especially those who support political candidates who are not in office, such as those supporting Ron Paul.

Question three: Who does this issue effect and matter to?

The simple fact that we need to press through our collective brain matter is that this issue effects everybody. Ultimately, in the end it will effect every single person in this country.

How will this decision effect every single person in this country?

That is easy to answer, for every person who has either defended themselves or their families with a firearm from an attacker it matters. It matters to every person who could have defended themselves as well. Without understanding that this issue attaches itself to every person on both sides, a compromise can never be found.

Question 4: Do guns kill people, or do people kill people?

Ok, this question is a standard throw around question for this issue. The answer to it is easy and simple. Guns are inanimate objects. They cannot load themselves, cock themselves, and fire themselves (unless dropped). It is the people behind them that use them in however manner they see fit.

To answer a following question, ‘but guns are the root of violent crimes are not they?’ Ill bring back the statistical quote from James Agresti that was stated in Question 1. “”In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms.”

In reality, the root of violent crimes are not the weapons or objects they use, but the people and motivations behind them. Remember also that everyday objects such as cars, pencils, jugs of water and plates can and have been used in violent crimes. So if we wanted to reduce violent crime, we would have to ban nearly everything we use in everyday life.

Question 5: Is a compromise between both parties concerning gun control possible?

As it stands now, no. Firearms are too much of a political focus for a compromise to be made. Each party will fight and fight and ultimately waste time on a subject that should be taking a back seat to current events, i.e. the economy, the growing war in Afghanistan, the economy (I could go on, but I assume you get the picture). Until these answers are presented to and understood by congress, will there ever be any final decision made. In truth, there are other questions that spawn even more questions from their respective answers, but what needs to be understood is that the time to fight this out is not now, it is when we, as a country, has achieved economic and political stability.

In conclusion, this topic will probably never be resolved, only because we seem to demonize the people who are on the opposite sides. If a group of people can come together and make a final decision, without throwing the party lines left and right, we will never find a solution to this growing issue as well as many others that are brewing.