“Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do”

Following the recent murder of 26 schoolchildren in Newton, Connecticut, one of countless mass shootings in the US, the above phrase has almost become a slogan for gun lovers. To some extent its right, as people technically USE guns to kill other people, so it is the owners of the weapons who are to blame. On top of this, any gun loving American could also point out that I could try and kill my own postman with a LEGO brick, which, in this case would become a weapon in the eyes of the law. However, besides being painful to step on, LEGO was not designed to harm others, unlike firearms, which are used by the armies of the world because they do just that. In addition, it takes a lot less strength and skill for an assailant to pull a trigger than use close quarter weapons; in fact, part of the reason why guns succeeded the humble bow is that the former were just so easy to use by comparison. A different argument made by pro-gun groups is that banning firearms would simply take them out of the hands of peaceful enthusiasts, without reducing the number of illegal weapons used by criminals. Are we living in some cartoonish world where criminals wear black and white striped tops and carry bags printed with dollar signs? Anyone can become a criminal, even if they bought their gun legally.

In another attempt to pass the buck, the NRA recently blamed videogames for recent killings, even hitching onto the fact that that some mass-murderers had been known to enjoy them in their free time. Whether videogames and films make children violent or not is almost irrelevant, as they should not be playing titles with adult content. That’s why we have a rigid certification system, active censorship boards, and store employees who ask for ID every time I try to buy a 12. Even if certain games encourage aggressive tendencies, it’s not children who buy them; it’s their parents, which leaves the responsibility for their son/daughter’s mental wellbeing in their own hands. All parents have to do is say no.

The American constitution is the most fiercely guarded document in the world, and thanks to its 1791 amendment giving citizens the right to bear arms, has been a rallying point for pro-gun campaigns. However, like any other political document, it seems obvious to me that the second amendment should be open to adjustment. Look at it this way; what were firearms like back in 1791? The answer is that they had a range of about my garden to door to the shed and took the best part of a minute to reload. I hardly think that the founding fathers had automatic assault rifles that can fire dozens of rounds a minute in mind. Seriously, do you know what you can legally own in the US? Flamethrowers, industrial explosives and rifles can all be bought without a license. Oh, and if you have almost half a million dollars, you can even buy your mum the Mini-gun she always wanted, you know, the one that you may have seen clamped to a helicopter in Apocalypse now.

Despite my distaste for firearms, I’m not naïve, and I don’t expect a ban to result in every gun enthusiast in the US handing in their collective 310 million weapons and choosing to take up railway modeling. Therefore, change must come slowly. Guns, like any other product, break, get thrown away and become obsolete, so will not remain in circulation forever. Therefore, efforts must be made to limit the supply of weapons in the first place, which will then obviously reduce the overall volume of firearms. This needs to be followed up by tighter border controls to reduce gun smuggling, while a better mental health system must be put in place to address those with violent tendencies.

Fortunately, progress is in site, as in mid-January President Obama launched 23 executive orders aimed at limiting the supply of guns and stopping them from getting into unstable hands. Although the same guns can still be bought, let’s hope that this is just one in a series of measures to save some of the 30,000 people murdered with firearms each year in the US.