Is it time for gun control?

As I write this, last week there was another mass shooting in the U.S.A. The sad fact is, that despite the date of posting, this is highly likely to be true no matter when it is read. Every time this happens, the same old debate crops up online. Why doesn’t America ban guns? It works everywhere else. Time after time, the same tired defences are used and the opposing parties never reach a consensus and go their separate ways butt-hurt.

I’ve never been to the States. I want to, but there is that fear that a citizen might ‘snap’ whilst I am there and it could be the end of me. Statistically, this is highly unlikely, but more likely than the plane dropping out of the sky on the way there and that also terrifies me. I too, believe that the US needs to implement some form of gun control, but rather than simply lecture on why, I want to look into why there is so much resistance to it.

One way to empathise is to look at things I have felt strongly about in the past. As a fan of rock music, home cinema and videogames, I am no stranger to cries for what I enjoy to be banned for spurious reasons. In the 80s, rock music was blamed for deaths. Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest being particular targets. I’ve previously spoken about the video nasties moral panic in the 80s too, which continued well into the 90s too. Video games still have ongoing debates and are often the target of blame for a variety of crimes.

It doesn’t feel good when you feel threatened by the moralist brigade. Responding with vigour and vitriol as well as trying desperately to make the points that will make the other side see your point of view. After the Columbine shootings, both Marilyn Manson and the videogame Doom were attributed as a cause. And Grand Theft Auto 3 was under fire after a child used a high-powered sniper rifle to take pots shots at passing traffic, killing a driver. The difference between where the blame lies? Well in both instances given, the access to guns was far more of a factor than the media that they consumed.

A common argument used is that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. That is certainly true. It isn’t the existence of guns that causes deaths, but the people that pull the trigger. The problem is that kids make poor choices and can over-react to situations. No matter how responsible a parent is in securing guns, a kid will find a way. When I was 4, I used to get up at stupid o’clock to watch Spiderman cartoons on a Saturday morning. My parents had locked the living room door with a latch that was high up, so I was unable to reach. I simply used a bunch of Lego to slip it over. Then in the living room was a drinks cabinet, always locked. I simply found the key and one morning my parents got up to find a smashed 4 year old, face sticky with Baileys Irish Cream and Malibu telling them they were his ‘best fuggin’ mates’. My point is that kids see a lock as a puzzle to overcome. The more something is forbidden, the more they want to play with it.

I’ve no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible, let us not forget it is the minority that perform mass shootings. The media will pass incidents off as mentally ill people or terrorists (depending largely on the tone of skin) to make it seem like less of a problem. I personally think a lot needs to be done to find what is causing people to fly into these types of rages, specifically in the US. They have the same media as the majority of the world in terms of films, music and games, largely because it is their primary export. Perhaps it is the TV shown daily? Highly doubtful, since a lot of English speaking countries are almost following suit with the same kinds of prime time entertainment and sensationalist news.

The scale the western media uses to differentiate between mental illness and terrorism.

 

Let’s say for the sake of argument, America completely banned the sale of guns. What then? There would still be literally millions of guns already out there. Shootings would still happen and the pro-gun people would argue that taking away their second amendment rights was for naught and should be reversed.( Side note, Jim Jeffries answered the argument about changing that particular law best when he point out ‘It’s called an amendment’. Laws change based on what is appropriate at the time, based on what is best for the people.) The problem would definitely remain until all of the guns in circulation became unfit for use. How long would that take? 50 years? 100? Ammunition would eventually run out too, them road signs ain’t gonna shoot themselves. In the short term, it does nothing.

A buy back scheme would be the fairest option, although expensive to the state. People given retail value in exchange for their guns. Even criminals would take advantage of that fact too, as a lot of criminality is borne out of necessity, be it feeding a family or looking for a fix for their addiction. And one thing addicts aren’t renowned for is long term planning, they would sell their guns in a second. Perhaps some military budget can be ring-fenced for that purpose and the military make use of what they can and use the rest for parts, so that way it wouldn’t be a loss. Also, if it means postponing a war, all the better.

I don’t have the answers. It is complex and doesn’t benefit from black and white thinking (does anything?). I think ultimately my point is that if you are arguing with someone about this subject, bear in mind how you would feel if some disturbed people were abusing something you enjoyed and how you would respond to that. No-one likes being called an idiot and it keeps both sides locked in perpetual disagreement. I think one thing that both the pro-gun and anti-guns crowds can agree on is this; something needs to change.