Why Tighter Gun Enforcement Laws Wouldn’t Make Us Safer

by Legal Author on January 4, 2013

Guest blog post arguing that tighter gun enforcement laws wouldn’t make us safer. Comments welcome below.

A strong debate has been going on since the mid 2000s about increasing gun control in the United States. In light of the horrific events in Connecticut on December 14, 2012, the argument has been rekindled for increased gun laws. However, does that really make us safer from a demented mind who has murder in his or her soul? If the decision to kill has been made by an individual, it doesn’t matter what object they utilize. A gun is nothing more than a tool and it is the mindset of the individual that should be addressed. Here are a few things to consider when arguing tighter gun laws:

1. Defenseless – If people were forced to give up their firearms, it would leave them defenseless. Don’t think that for one second that the criminal element would be willing to give up their guns. It would leave the law-abiding citizens open like sheep to a slaughter. The fact is, if someone wants to find a gun they can. It’s a harsh reality we all must face, but the black market is filled with weapons of various kinds.

2. Food for Thought – When the decision to kill is made, the tool doesn’t matter. Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted of 15 counts of brutally murdering and slaughtering young men and boys and didn’t fire a single shot to do it. His weapons of choice were knives and acid. History is filled with those who have slaughtered many without using a firearm. Thousands are killed on a regular basis from drunk drivers as alcohol is still legal – even though tighter laws are in place.

3. Mental Capacities – Although there are books and information available to help identify the signals of a mind capable of murder, it’s not mandatory reading. Although some cases exist where the one who committed to killing seemed like an “ordinary guy”, a vast majority of those willing and able to kill had a past of mental instability. It’s not the gun we should be blaming, but a system that simply doesn’t have the time to put into finding out why a 20-year-old feels the need to kill in the first place. The NRA shouldn’t have fingers pointed at it, but the system who let the person slip through the cracks should.

4. The Criminal Element – As stated above, the criminal element would still hold on to their firearms. In fact, it could make for a lucrative business for a criminal to invest in weapon trafficking. Having a tighter grasp on gun laws doesn’t help against the criminals who still have them. In some areas of the United States the criminals are better equipped for gun fights than the police departments are.

Although the gun is the instrument in shootings, it is not responsible for the death of its victim. It is the mentally disturbed individual who made the decision to kill that is to blame. He or she would have killed regardless what was in their hands. Adam Lanza had enough ammunition to slaughter everyone in the school in Connecticut. His decision was nothing short of mass murder to the Nth degree. If a gun wasn’t accessible, he surely would have turned to arson or another method to kill as many as he could. Instead of blaming the NRA, maybe people should be considering why people make the decision for mass murder in the first place.

Author Bio:

Ken Myers is the founder of  http://www.longhornleads.com/ & has learned over the years the importance of focusing on what the customer is looking for and literally serving it to them. He doesn’t try to create a need, instead he tries to satisfy the existing demand for information on products and services.

Legal Author

Legal Author

This post was written by a legal author invited to publish on YouBlawg for free because of the high value associated with their work. If you'd like to register your interest in publishing really high quality legal content here, please get in touch via our Contact page

Previous post:

Next post: