Urging for changes to gun laws, Obama has proposed a range of measures such as tougher background checks and a ban on assault weapons. This week Big Debate asks, are tighter gun laws the best way to combat shootings in the U.S?
YES: Ruby Lott-Lavigna
There is no doubt that a multitude of factors result in gun crime and there is no simple way to eradicate a culture and the ingrained sense of entitlement to guns that exists in America. But after the numerous mass shootings; in a cinema in Colorado; a Sikh temple in Wisconsin; the shooting of a manufacturer in Minneapolis; and the final catalyst to Obama’s gun laws; the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut, ignoring the fact that gun laws need to be tightened is impossible. Although there are various factors that contribute to these shootings, the easy access to guns is clearly one of them, and limiting access to them is one of the best ways to stop these kinds of shootings. Albeit, not the only way, and even if more guns do not equal more gun crime, a pretty basic logic states fewer guns equals fewer gun crimes.
America’s culture is most certainly a contributing factor to these mass shootings. Excessive focus on gun crime in music (“Shoot ’em up, just shoot ’em up, what…/Kill kill kill, murder murder murder” – Nas ‘Shoot ‘em up’) and film (“I count six shots, n*gger, I count two guns, n*gger” – ‘Django Unchained’) makes it clear there exists a normalisation of the presence of guns in parts of American culture. This is one of the problems with the gun epidemic, how ingrained it is in certain elements of American society. Even so, you don’t cultivate this kind of culture without being able to easily access guns.
The Second Amendment is problematic in the way that it produces an attitude of entitlement to guns, that it is a basic right to own a weapon. Growing up in a society that tells you that America is the best country in the world, and that its definition of ‘rights’ is an absolute, it is no wonder a mentality that a gun is synonymous with freedom is prevalent. It leads to ridiculous logic, such as the National Rifle Association proposing putting more guns in schools…to prevent shootings. This backward logic that more guns equals more safety has to be disproven by the correlation between ‘civilian firearms per 100 residents’ and ‘number of homicides by firearms’ a year. Whilst places like the UK have about six guns per 100 residents, and only 18 homicides by firearm, America has 89 guns per 100 people, and a whopping 9,960 homicides by firearms. Even Switzerland, which has much more lax gun control than places like the UK for its people’s militia, only has 40 homicides a year by guns. There’s a massive confusion between the gun being both a weapon of defence and attack, and until people stop seeing guns as a right, and start seeing them as something that antagonises situations as opposed to solves them, this stupid logic will continue.
By creating more gun laws, you combat a culture of entitlement and question the validity of The Second Amendment. Obama’s laws are pretty basic – background checks to private gun sellers, revising a ban on assault rifles, limiting the number of rounds in a high capacity magazine, but they are still one step closer to combatting gun crime. People who commit mass shootings don’t do it simply because they have a gun and can, they do it because they’re angry, violent or mentally unstable, but also happen to have access to guns. Simply owning a gun doesn’t mean you’re going to go and shoot a cinema full of people, and it’s clearly the people who are responsible, not the inanimate objects. But, if people are the problem, then should they really be given such easy access to guns?
NO: Natalie Oliver
Last year 11,101 gun-related homicides were reported within the U.S, accounting for 70 per cent of all murders. It is unsurprising, after the Sandy Hook tragedy, that there has been a rush of campaigns to enact new anti-gun laws. In practice, to focus on gun legislation is a flawed approach to the issue. Firstly, the policies set out by Obama to combat gun violence are unlikely to have much progressive effect. Secondly, even if an outright ban on all firearms were to be passed, the complete removal of the estimated 270,000,000 privately owned guns from civilians would be severely problematic, if not impossible. And finally, black markets thrive off prohibition, so individuals with a strong desire to have a gun, could still acquire one.
Strangely enough, one of the most vocal supporters of the anti-gun lobby shares a similar sentiment. Piers Morgan himself said on January 15 that while he thinks guns should be banned, in reality “this will not solve the gun crime problem in America. It’s not going to stop mass shootings.” This is down to the three problems within Obama’s policies. The requirement of licensed firearms dealers to conduct a “universal background check” is stunted because not only will it not apply to private sale, it also ignores the issue that many shootings involve legally purchased weapons. Obama calls for an outright ban on “military style assault weapons”. This blatantly neglects the fact that all guns kill people, to prohibit a certain style of gun is just bizarre. Then there’s the proposed limit of 10-rounds in newly manufactured and sold guns. Again, one bullet is a sufficient killing device. Also this legislative move will have little impact when the guns already in circulation exceed these limits.
While a complete ban may seem the sensible response to Obama’s rather ineffective policies, Australia already tried that, and out of two million, only 643,000 firearms were handed in. That’s just 32 per cent. If that were to be directly translated to the United States, that would mean that there would still be 183.6 million out of the 270 million guns floating around in the unregistered wilderness. Complete prohibition also has the unintended consequence of expanding black markets. The existing evidence indicates that criminals, including rampaging killers, are virtually unaffected by gun control laws. For example, the Columbine massacre occurred with illegally purchased weapons, four years after the Assault Weapons Ban was passed in Colorado. If illegal weapons are the only weapons, all control of who has them will be lost.
In a country so flooded with guns, it seems the most danger is in the gun free zones, where killers will select seemingly defenceless targets. Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the cinema in Aurora, and Columbine High School all had policies prohibiting firearms. Mass knife attack incidents in China within the last year show that regardless of which weapon is available, if someone is disturbed enough to want to go on a killing spree, restricting their firearm access won’t change that. Gun ownership doesn’t cause violence, so policies that address the causes of crime are the only ones that will prove effective. Until then, the National Rifle Association’s National School Shield proposal seems the most safety-conscious response. Taking away guns will create more fear among law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens than it will decrease shootings.