Gun control. One of the most controversial topics debated by the United States government and citizens. In fact, according to Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, “89% support closing the so-called gun show loophole by requiring background checks for all firearms sale; 69% support banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons; while 68% support banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.” They later go on to add: “More than 80 percent favor prohibiting ‘high-risk individuals’ from having guns, including those convicted of a serious crime as a juvenile or those convicted of violating a domestic violence restraining order.” Even though it is exceedingly difficult to find something 80% of Americans agree upon, opinions are strong and the wrangle between the left and the right has been a quite drawn out ordeal. Gun control has yet to be established successfully. Although people should have guns to protect themselves and their families, gun control should be stricter than it is because the reason most people want guns is to protect themselves from dangerous individuals who have access to firearms who wouldn’t be a threat if gun control was tighter. If there were less guns in the first place, then they wouldn’t have to worry and people would not be injured and/or killed by firearms as a result of lack of adequate gun control.

As a result of deficient gun control, 8,775 of the 12,996 total murders in the United States in 2010 (nearly 70%) were carried out with a gun (Juan Cole). Our statistic casts a massive shadow over that of Great Britain, who had only 638 total murders with 58 by gun (Juan Cole). That’s .09%. Even if amounts were adjusted to fit population (Great Britain’s population is ? of the United States’). Great Britain would have 290 murders by firearm and 3,095 total. The drastic contrast is a result of a law that allows only members of the armed forces, police officers, or individuals with written permission from Home Secretary may legally own a handgun. The penalty for illegal possession is a minimum of five years in prison (Blunkett Denies Guns U-Turn). This demonstrates the effects a suitable law can have on society. If we pass (or even just try out) an enactment similar to Great Britain’s carefully devised to protect American citizens, we can potentially reduce the yearly murder rates by up to 70%. That’s huge. If we had had gun control, then 70% of those ghosts would be alive, would be leading lives, continuing relationships; the brothers and sisters, daughters and sons, grandchildren and friends whose lives had been extinguished by a bullet would have continued to live on, ignited and shining bright.

In New Zealand, there is a gun control law preventing the general public from legally accessing small firearms called the United Nations Small Arms Programme of Action (UNPoA). It was put into action in 2001. Since 1988 up until the time the law was put into action, the median amount of deaths by firearm each year was 90. After 2001 until 2010, the median dropped to 55 deaths per year (Guns in New Zealand - Firearms, Gun Law and Gun Control). Imagine the effects this law would have on the United States.

With proper gun control, most of the notorious shooting sprees and school shootings would have been prevented. People who shouldn’t have access to guns, such as the mentally ill, those prone to murder, and those who are overall mentally unfit to carry a gun are able to do just that (to find out whether or not one is prone to murder, a psychological profile done by a medical professional can be given as part of the background check to see how often and easily the prospective gun owner turn to violence in various scenarios).The most astounding thing about these massacres is their frequency, a flurry of them sprouting up around the mid-90s and continuing a steady trend through the first part of the 21st century, up until the present. For example: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, 2007; 32 dead. Killeen, Texas, 1991; 24 dead. San Ysidro, California, 1984; 21 dead. Sandy Hook Elementary, Newtown, Connecticut, 2012; 28 dead. Aurora, Colorado, 2012; 12 dead, 70 injured (25 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History). Someone who I used to go to school with since kindergarten has been arrested for a shooting he was involved in, being charged as an adult with murder, attempted murder, and criminal conspiracy, among other things not mentioned (Alison Burdo). The death of an innocent bystander walking home from school and the critical injury of another bystander (whose current condition is not mentioned either) would have been prevented if a background check had been conducted investigating the trustworthiness of the other person who had brought the gun to the scene. According to the FBI, “out of 100 million background checks in the past decade, only 0.007% applications were denied.” (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Doesn’t that seem a little too relaxed for the crime rates involving firearms in this country?

If there were less guns in circulation in the first place, then the amount injuries and murders caused by guns plummet extraordinarily. 7 of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws have the lowest rates gun death rates. Unsurprisingly, a telling amount of states with the weakest gun laws also have the highest gun death rates (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence). The Brady Campaign states that “One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot, thirty-two Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room on average, and in 2007, more pre-school-aged children (eighty-five) were killed by guns than police officers were killed in the line of duty (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence). Those parents can only imagine a future for their children, these toddlers were literally robbed of the opportunity of a lifetime.

One might argue that people should have guns to protect themselves, their families, and fellow citizens. This seems like a good idea initially, but evidence from the Oxford Journals shows that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4) (Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study).” If we stopped to think about the odds, there is a next-to-no chance of an armed person being in the right place at the right time and actually helping the situation. This is what police officers are for. You could say that they won’t be in the right place at the right time either, but only a tiny percentage of people will carry guns and act as cops, and will make no difference except compel other citizens cross to the other side of the street and put their vigilance on hyperdrive every time they see a guy ambling towards them with two handguns in his holsters and an elephant gun strapped to his back.

There’s also the belief that the only thing that matters is whose hands the gun is in and that everybody needn’t suffer the consequences of the actions of others. While it does depend on the person, is it really worth risking a life? Guns give people a helping hand if they want to murder. It’s much more difficult to kill someone with a knife than a pistol. It takes far less shots than stabs to steal a life. Stemming the flow of guns now will benefit future generations who won’t have to worry quite so much about how criminals are getting ahold of firearms illegally after the river of guns has dried up.

Lack of sufficient gun control equals unnecessary and preventable murders and massacres. We also ironically get shot and killed more often if we carry a firearm. Individuals who are too unstable to carry a gun should, of course, not be allowed to. All of this can be prevented by a decent background check that investigates mental stability and possibly a test for depression if applicable. New gun control laws, possibly modeled off of those in New Zealand (those banning small, easily concealable and transportable guns), should be introduced. If our safety isn’t a top priority, with all due respect, I suggest we reevaluate.