By Michael Chang
As we all know, the topic of gun violence and, more specifically, gun control has been a very controversial issue that has been in the spotlight.
While it has been the opportunity for many groups of people who call for change and advocate heavy gun control, others have come to disagree with their ideas, leading to a divided country.
Some have even gone as far as to call for an “assault-weapons” ban, some going even more radical and declare a need to ban guns in general.
They claim that no one needs such weapons, and that the reduction of guns mean less violence.
As appealing as it sounds, this is unfortunately not true. I believe that any type of banning of firearms would be ineffective and simply wouldn’t work.
One case that many gun control advocates bring up is that we should have a system similar to Australia.
In 1996, someone used a semiautomatic rifle to murder 34 people in Tasmania. This eventually led to the Australian government to ban all semi-automatic rifles.
Many gun control advocates in the U.S. want something similar. In Australia, after the ban was made into law, 700,000 registered firearms were confiscated for destruction.
To ad perspective, in a video by Prager University called “What Should We Do About Guns?,” Nicholas Johnson, professor of Law at Fordham University, explains that the 700,000 guns were a quarter out of the 3 million total guns in the country.
Professor Johnson shows that this model of gun control won’t work in the U.S. One reason is that we have way too many guns for a confiscation of firearms to work. We have about 325 million guns total in the U.S. 325 million compared to 3 million.
Professor Johnson even goes further to explain that even if such a “ban” would perfectly work, we are still left with more than 200 million guns, including hand guns, a weapon that does not fall under the Australian gun ban.
Now there are those that say that most gun crimes are committed with semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. However, in the same video by Prager University, Professor Johnson explains that in actuality, 80% of guns crimes are committed with hand guns.
Yet many want the banning of these “assault-rifles” and not hand guns.
Thus, some have led to the radical conclusion that all weapons must be banned.
So let’s see if gun confiscation has ever worked perfectly.
Professor Johnson reveals that a 2007 international survey showed that 72 countries attempted gun confiscation. The result was mass defiance to these laws and only a third of gun owners complying with the restrictions.
Johnson then reveals that if Americans defy gun bans at the rate it has occurred internationally, tens of millions of guns would flood into the black market.
The technical definition of “black market” is “an illegal traffic or trade in officially controlled or scarce commodities,” emphasis on “illegal.”
Johnson also states that it should be noted that even putting aside the 2nd amendment, which clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, support for such bans would be minimal.
In Massachusetts, 1976, and in California, 1982, attempted hand-gun bans failed and had very little support.
No attempts by wither state to ban guns have occurred since then.
In the end, it doesn’t matter which gun you wish to ban, that wouldn’t stop huge black market sales and mass defiance.
Now imagine this: from 1920-1933, the United States prohibited alcohol and passed the 18th amendment (prohibition of alcoholic beverages).
During the time before, alcohol was considered to be connected to a rise in family violence and “saloon-based political corruption.”
The prohibition was intended to reduce the violence and corruption. Yet we all know that this prohibition was very ineffective.
Mass defiance to these laws and also came the rise to bootlegging, along with massive tax revenue lost. Organized crime rose and quickly took over the bootleg business, which should be considered illegal under the 18th amendment.
Eventually, the 21st amendment was passed and repealed the 18th amendment in 1933.
So what did we learn from this?
Despite the banning of alcohol, which was considered connected to violence, many defied the law, alcohol was still being sold and drunk, albeit illegally, and crime did not reduce.
This can be the same with guns.
We already know, thanks to Professor Johnson, that banning of guns would lead to mass defiance, and a rise in illegal firearm sales. If we passed any laws banning guns, I believe that it would only be a matter of time before such bans are declared ineffective.
Yet just because I believe gun bans wouldn’t work doesn’t mean I’m completely against gun control.
For one, I believe that we should focus even more on background checks to ensure that firearms will not fall into the wrong hands.
I believe that certain amount of ammunition that is owned can be limited, though not by much.
But ultimately, the banning of guns is something that I cannot and will not support.