Gun Control

S.B., contributing editor

Why is it that so many groups are against privately owned firearms? Is it because they fear something that Hollywood tells them to fear, or because they don't understand guns in general? It would seem that the latter is the case. I think that they are wrong, and that there should be an increased focus on education about guns, and a focus on stiffer penalties for crimes committed with guns. The way to decrease crime isn't to take the weapons from private, law abiding citizens. This kind of action only hurts the honest guy. Also, something else that really makes no sense is the requirement for a permit to carry a weapon. Criminals don't give a damn about permits. The only redeeming thing about permit requirements is the requirement for education in the safe handling of a weapon, which everyone should have.

Some people would say to increase police presence. I would partially agree with that statement. Increasing police presence is a start, but the police are a reactionary force, who only get called when a crime is in progress, or after it has been committed. If the victim had an Order for Protection, the police have a good idea of who to arrest. Oftentimes, I think that the victims rely too heavily on the police to protect them, when they should be taking the first step, and protecting themselves within the scope of the law. If you show criminals that you aren't going to roll over for them, and protect yourself, they'll find easier prey.

Some people don't believe in guns, and I understand that, but education is the best way to understand something that you don't know anything about. The other method people commonly propose is taking away private ownership of guns, and making it so that the military and police are the only ones who have access to guns. That would be unconstitutional and impractical. If you look at the countries who have outlawed private ownership of guns, like Australia, the UK, and to some extent, Canada, you'll see that crimes committed with firearms have gone up after taking away privately owned guns. Doesn't sound like a solution to me.

The way to decrease crime is to make prison a VERY unpleasant place, and to make a criminal's stay an extended, unpleasant tour. Our society has put too much focus on coddling criminals and too little focus on making people accountable for their actions. Some people would say that this seems a little extreme, but I think that Sheriff Joe from Maricopa County Arizona has the right idea. He makes his prisoners stay in tents with temperatures exceeding 100 degrees during the day, and has meal costs down to forty cents per meal, per person. This is effective in decreasing the number of repeat visitors to his jail, and has kept crime in his county down. I believe that prisoners should have their basic needs attended to, but by no means should they live in luxury. A prisoner doing five years should not have a degree when he leaves prison, but should by all means have an opportunity to learn a skill or trade to get him away from a life of crime. Studies have shown that if an individual learns a skill or trade while in prison, they reduce their chances of coming back. Granted, this is not automatic, but is a generalization of prisoners as a whole.

In closing, I'd like to say, that gun control is not crime control. Just look at New York, LA, Detroit, Chicago, and DC. DC had the highest murder rate in the country, and those were usually committed with guns. Yet, they have some of the strictest gun laws. How can this be? Gun control doesn't work. Marion Barry was once quoted as saying, "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country." Doesn't that make you feel comfortable about our nation's capitol? If they take away guns, people will use something else to commit crimes. People have used cars and baseball bats to commit crimes, but you don't see anyone trying to stop you from driving to the game, do you?"