I live on the East Coast, which means that most people I talk to, unless I go to the deep south of most states, would like a form of extreme gun control. However, people's opinions are not always parallel with the facts.
The definition of gun control is relative to where you are in the United States. In California, gun control means the banning of all firearms regardless of type. In Texas, gun control means a slight change in the purchasing system.
Advocates of gun control often bring to light the increase in mass shootings this year and previously. But what will banning guns do to stop this? Only the facts will tell.
The National Institute of Justice states that arrestees pulled off the street stated that guns were obtained illegally in much greater numbers than through a legal buying system. What this means is that regular citizens who seek to protect themselves from violence will be restrained while the people committing the violence prosper through their black market transactions.
Still don't believe me?
Let's talk about assault rifles. First of all, assault rifles got their name because they were used in the military for that singular purpose: assault. However, if one compares an "assault" rifle to any other type of semi or fully automatic gun, the similarities are clear.
There is also a clear distinction between semi-automatic weapons civilians can own and assault weapons the military uses. There are functions that are excluded from the guns within civilian grasp, and for good reason. An assault rifle is a gun that can be switched from semiautomatic to fully automatic, and again to a three-round burst mode. But this is not an assault weapon.
People often confuse the two and are wrong to use the term "assault rifle" when referring to weapons used in shootings because it does not accurately define the weapon.
The statistics are sobering, to say the least. Handguns are the winner when it comes to using in violent crimes, followed by rifles, but with a dramatic increase of ninety points, and then shotguns with barely any incidences.
So what's all the fuss about banning rifles? It seems like the left doesn't want anyone to have guns anymore, but not for good reason.
Out of the 49,781 incidents reported, 311 were from mass shootings. That is 0.006 percent. It seems as though using mass shootings as a platform for gun control is a little invalid.
These maps compare gun deaths with gun ownership in the United States. Incidences occur generally in the South and the coasts. Although there are a few dense gun ownership states in the South, there are also similar states in the Midwest. Unless my eyes deceive me, I do not see nearly as many incidents in the Midwest as on the coasts or in the South.
It also seems as though the states where there is a very small ownership rate get the most crime. Could the cause for shootings... not be the legal gun owner's fault? Hard to think about.
Lastly, to really bring this home, let's look at the crime statistics from the past as compared to now. Although mass shootings are a big concern for many when it comes to gun violence, the fact is the majority of incidents are "normal" situations. Gang violence, marital disputes, accidents, suicides, and other similar instances.
Given this, these statistics should be the ones that matter. As reported by victims, crime has drastically declined from 1993 to 2016 from 2,379 to 590. According to the FBI database, the 2017 violent crime rates dropped 0.2 percent from the 2016 numbers and 10.6 percent below the 2008 rates.
When compared to other countries with stricter gun violence, we obviously look much worse. But I do not understand how any individual with logical reasoning can compare the United States to any other country. Our legislature is not like any other country's and it would be foolish to compare, especially when speaking of gun violence. Although our constitution gives us the right to bear arms, it is vague.
That is why gun control legislation is in place to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms. But the constitutional right will not be stripped any time in the near future. This country was founded on the basis of individual rights and the ability of citizens to defend themselves as a well-regulated militia. If this right was taken away, the very foundation of this country would crumble, and we would start to head towards a state of socialistic control.
