Gun Control: A Different Approach

We've heard Rosie O'Donnell and moms across America calling for stricter gun laws, taking away all semi-automatic weapons and hand guns, leaving hunters to their rifles and not much else. But would that really solve anything?

Criminals obviously realize that they are committing crimes in the first place when they commit murder, rob banks, loot homes etc., so what would stop them from adding the crime of owning an illegal handgun to the list? The answer is nothing, not more laws, not taking away the guns of responsible people, nothing. Most of the guns used to commit crimes in the United States are illegal in the first place. If a criminal wants to kill someone, they will find a way no matter what.

Currently there are 35 US states that allow their residents permits to carry a concealed weapon. I live in one of the states, Michigan, who requires that you be 21 years of age and that you go through a series of training classes before they will issue you a permit. I grew up in a household that taught me that guns were not toys, and from a very young age I knew what kind of consequences could result from playing with them. I truly believe that in the case of any kind of weapon that knowledge is the best way to combat the negative possibilities of misuse.

Some say our founding fathers couldn't have predicted the dangerous types of guns that would be in use today when they drafted the 2nd amendment. But they probably couldn't foresee the types of crimes being committed today either. They stated each citizen has a right to bear arms and form militia. They wanted each American to have a right to protect themselves, at the time it was just from a restrictive government, because they could trust their neighbor. But we can't trust all of our neighbors anymore, and they would still today believe in our right to protect ourselves from anything.

Now back to the theory that if we take away handguns and semi-automatic weapons we will have a much safer society. Just one of the many cities that bust this myth is Washington D.C. where there has been a ban on handguns for quite sometime. All we have to do is look at the statistics to see that Washington D.C.'s crime rate is well above that of the national rate in all types of crime except forcible rape and larceny. It is also WAY above that of New York, which has long been considered one of the most dangerous cities in the country. It doesn't appear that a lack of guns has deterred D.C.'s criminals or made the population any safer.

And lets take a look a everyone's favorite neutral country, Switzerland, who has one of the highest gun per capita rates in the world. They also happen to have one of the world's safest societies. Murder and violent crimes are nearly unheard of in this country and when it does happen it usually involves someone foreign who hasn't been through the military and gun training courses the Swiss are required to go through.

This isn't just mere coincidence, there are studies across the world which prove that people who are armed and informed have a much better chance of protecting themselves. Not to mention, it would only make sense that crime rates would decrease drastically if this criminals who hide behind the power of a trigger didn't know who else had that power and what was waiting for them behind the door they're about to break into. I for one would feel much safer living in a society where I knew I could be safe in my own home and that I had a right to protect myself from intruders and even out in the street if someone tried to accost me, I could protect myself.

So what about the crazy people like Seung-Hui Cho, who obtain guns legally and use them to do harm? He had been deemed dangerous and psychopathic by many different sources, yet no one who had daily contact with him knew about it, they couldn't inform his parents, and the FBI's database that gets checked when guns are purchased said nothing about any of the dangerous activities the young man had been involved in. 32 people were slain by Cho because we didn't want to infringe on his right to privacy. I've always been taught though that his constitutional rights should've ended where those 32 other people's right to life began.

If his file had stated that he was deemed a danger to himself or others, the Virginia gun shop owner would've never sold him the gun. A new law needs to be passed that will require courts to put these kinds of dangerous things on peoples' records. Yes, it's true he could've gotten it some other way illegally, but it would've made it quite difficult for him to begin with if these kind of laws were in place.

Also lets consider the possibility that someone else in the building had a gun, one of the victims perhaps. If they knew how to use it and had been through safety training, a lot less people would've been hurt. However, guns aren't even legally allowed on most college campuses at the moment, rendering most students helpless unless they carry pepper spray. Had Cho known that any of those people could've been carrying guns to stop him, this whole tragedy may not have even happened.

It's hard to say at such a sad time what can truly keep us safe. But I feel as though it is my own duty to step in and protect myself when police officers and others cannot. Criminals are just that, people who commit crimes, adding more laws for them to break isn't going to help anyone, simply make further tie the hands of law-abiding citizens trying to protect themselves. Knowledge is our best weapon against violent gun crimes, teaching people about the dangers of guns and the benefits of their protection. We don't live in a nation of people who will just be nice and turn in their weapons, times have changed and we need to be able to legally protect ourselves and our loved ones from those who seek to do harm.