(This piece is meant to be an exercise on persuasive writing and the points that I am making I hold to no great level of scrutiny and it was chosen purely for being a topical issue. My actual views on the issue are irrelevant. I did this to make sure that I wasn’t arguing from a place of pure emotion, however, using the secretive method of debate.)
As of writing this essay two major gun related crimes have happened in the U.S.A, that being the Chicago and Arizona massacres which had led to Eight people dead and Thirty-Three wounded. These massacres had once again proposed a challenge to the forum of socio-political thought, that being gun control. The attitude of a typical Australian is that gun control present in Australia is that of un-refutable success, however, this is a falsehood and ignores that the freedom to carry firearms is a most necessary right of a free man. The proposal of such a contention is not without deep quarrel within the realms of one’s thought on safety over liberty and many other issues that are proposed by the Two major camps of thought on this issue. Yet, after research into the topic of gun control an individual must realise that both mainstream parties of gun control lack nuance, originality, purpose and of current relevance, the issue of firearms is quite desensitised to the populace of the world simply because of the sample space and frequency of the possibilities of attacks using guns. therefore, the individual who discusses these issues should not be towing the ideological line of either party, however, should propose new ideas that address the systemic issues relating to guns. The three pillars of this essay shall consist of three major pieces of discourse, Firstly, how geography and culture influences the efficiency of gun regulation, the inefficiency of gun control, the infringement on the rights of the individual.
Firearm ownership is commonly linked to crime, which is a point which is valid, however, this shows a deeper systemic problem rather than a problem of sporadic spontaneous shootings by firearm owners. Switzerland has a population gun ownership rate per capita at approximately Sixty percent (Keith Krause, The Swiss Small Arms Survey of two-thousand and seven) and they have one of the lowest firearm related crime in the world. The murder rate there in two-thousand and fourteen was zero-point-four per one hundred thousand people (Swiss Federal Statistical Office; twenty-third March two-thousand-fifteen ) similarly in Norway and the Czech Republic the culture surrounding guns can be described as quite liberal. In comparison, the Mexican government imposed strict firearm control requiring strict licensing and creating a system of social promotion of not owning a firearm by making them very expensive. However, this initiative has led to the Mexican crime rate jumping upwards of Forty percent since Two-Thousand and Five and the murder rate in two-thousand and five (2) post-regulation was fourteen per one hundred thousand. Many of the populaces in Mexico have taken up illegal arms to protect their land such with the case of Colonia LeBaron began on May Fifth, two-thousand and nine, when kidnappers seized a sixteen-year-old boy and demanded a one million dollars ransom, this has led to him taking up illegal arms to fight local criminals going as far as saying “ think there would be less violence if there were more guns,” (1). This leads to a geography-culture issue rather than an actual innate firearm statistic jump. Therefore, we must conclude that the systemic issues of crime is the issues with gun-reflated crime. Systemic issues must be addressed like both genetic determinism and environmental issues rather than simp banning firearms. Firearm crime comes from systemic issues such as mental illness and genetic determinism, if we strip the citizenry of legal guns only smugglers will profit and criminals will be the ones obtaining firearms. Therefore, I prompt the reader to think that in first world nations are we not all culturally inclined to be given access to firearms? The solution is to deal with systemic issues such as crime, mental health, and social issues rather than ban the enabling object. If you clip the claws off a Tiger it still has teeth and means of hunting.
Firearms are an object of immense importance and for near two-hundred years, they have been used for farming purposes, self-defence and hunting. Firearms like knives are fundamental to the constant Human endeavor of efficiency, stability, and safety. To strip the rights of the citizenry of firearms is a slippery slope towards an increased crime culture. Such as in the United Kingdom where after handguns were banned homicides that include handguns doubled after five years of being banned that’s a jump from twelve homicides per one-million people to eighteen and still hasn’t returned to normal even after the general prosperity of the country and the incredible state funding for the police force. (3) The same can be guaranteed for other nations such as Ireland, Jamaica, and cities like D.C and Chicago. The linking fact is that the urban centers of these countries are home to psychological problems and poor living standards, so to a certain extent guns were keeping criminals hesitant to commit a crime in fear of retaliation and the incorporation of themselves into the harsher prison system that has arose due to stricter gun controls.
If you strip the populace of weaponry, you strip them of the right of stability from government and criminals The correlation of authoritarianism and the dependency on the welfare state has been linked to the disarming of the general populace many dictators such as Joseph Stalin “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”, Mao Zedong “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” Dictators from Hugo, to Chavez, to Adolf Hitler have proposed that to strip the citizenry of a well-regulated militia of armed citizen removes the potential for opposition to governmental tyranny. Whilst famous thinkers such as George Orwell to Gandhi believed in a free trade of arms. With this in mind may it be noted that many large population nations after disarming it’s populace had a great leap in authoritarian actions such as the heavy regulation of markets, the restriction of speech and the inciting of violence on peaceful demonstrators. We can see this in the Weimar republic, modern Ukraine, and many former Eastern bloc nations and if they are not subject to tyranny by the government they are held to the scrutiny of criminals. Thirty-Seven percent of state prison inmates who used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence obtained the gun from a family member or friend, and other methods such as importing of illegal firearms are becoming ever more popular meaning that legally obtained guns are continuously becoming system of law-abiding citizens and illegally obtained firearms that the government cannot control are becoming the innate method of obtaining a firearm, if we remove the passage to legal gun ownership, only illegal gun ownership remains by those who wish to do harm. Also in Chicago and D.C where firearms are banned had nearly Two-Thousand gun murders as of last year which simply shows that firearms are a commodity that will sneak itself into every facet of the market if a desire is in place. When more people die from diabetes in the world than by guns each year it is absolutely abhorrent to try and disarm a citizenry that simply yearn to have self-determination in stability and safety with the legally acquired firearm.
The fact of the subject matter is that adopting a system of no nuance is a system destined to fail, in this world of fusion between entertainment and information we have lost the ability to critically think about a solution to a problem without leeching off previous thinkers using their quotes and mindlessly regurgitating their ideas which many people follow. The solution this article proposes in that the issue of guns be determined by a state-wide plan of redeployment of law and order. We must allow the free trade of registered guns however we must close loopholes such as gun fair and in-family purchases. We must regulate on basis of statistics the purchasing of guns to those in the lower socio-economic areas should be more rigorous than lower risk areas. Those statements may seem discriminatory to some segments of the population, however, the question must be raised. If an individual were to propose segmental regulation would it be efficient on the law and order system if we disregard the feelings of the populace in question? In finality, guns regulation is too strict in Australia and to achieve the prominence to claim that we have found a sure method of promoting safety, liberty in ownership and efficiency in the issue of guns we must account for all points that are made (and commonly disregarded) by thinkers on this issue and the systemic issues around it such as sex, racial determinism and culture and create a nuanced solution to a nuanced problem. To achieve a balance of deregulation in Australia we need to put in place laws that are effective and not strenuous on the state, we can achieve that by critically thinking and being skeptical to every argument including the one you are reading until we can reach a decision that upholds freedom in the first world.
(That little bit about critical thinking and nuance was added to give my writing some personality, as it was mostly me spitting out statistics up until that point. I may have done that incorrectly though.)