COLUMN: Gun control leads to less security
On Monday, September 13, 2004, the Republican-held Congress allowed the ban on assault weapons (Crime Control Act of 1994) to “sunset”. It is now legal to manufacture and distribute such items as extended capacity magazine rounds, bayonet fixtures and 19 other gun models. Many gun rights activists see this as a victory for gun rights.
It is much larger than that, however; it is a great victory for American’s liberty and safety. It is the restoration and recognition of a constitutional right.
But liberals disagree. The left of American politics has, like many other constitutional questions, hijacked the context of this debate. It has forced it into the arena of aesthetics and fear. Politicians, like presidential hopeful John Kerry, have told Americans that unless we ban assault weapons, we will be allowing terrorists to arm themselves. He is relying on the ignorance of the public and fear tactics to circumvent the second amendment for political gain.
Consider this quote from a September 15, 1994 Washington Post editorial, “No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
This debate does not revolve around fear or ignorance. The question is simple, the constitutionality of the right “to keep and bear arms.” This right was to be held sacred, without the reach of the government, enshrined in the constitution. It is time we remember and recognize the Second Amendment for what it is: a personal freedom that results in safety only if left unregulated.
This right revolves around personal protection. There are approximately two million crimes prevented each year by use of firearms. Two million Americans had their lives, innocence and their property protected by their own hand. Instead, the left would have Americans believe that gun control eliminates guns from criminals or terrorists and reduces gun crime. Tell that to the two million Americans whose lives were saved by the right they had to bear arms. In reality, those who already have a disdain for law are the ones left with the guns, holding America hostage. Do you think that the planes on September 11, 2001 would have been hijacked with box cutters if even one responsible passenger had a gun? Guns promote safety.
This argument cannot be reduced, as liberals try, by the argument that “gun accidents” among children in homes are an increasing problem needing government intervention. Those accidents resulted in approximately 250 deaths in recent years, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. And these deaths could have been prevented if the owners of the guns decided to educate their children on proper use or maybe even the fact that guns are not toys. Education, not regulation is the answer here.
No guns would lead to no fatalities from guns. However, the fact of the matter is that guns exist and some people do want to harm others for their own benefit. If you take guns away form those who are responsible, the only people who benefit are those who have no respect for the law or governments. Gun control leads to only one outcome, less security. Just ask Australia, which experienced a monumental increase in its sexual crimes and burglaries after it enacted severe gun control laws.
Kudos, then, to President Bush and other Republicans for recognizing our right to choose to be safe. For the rest of us, it is time for Americans to remember who they are and fight for their liberty and fight for their safety. It is time that they fight for their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Jared Westbroek is a senior majoring in law and constitutional studies. Comments can be sent to jwestbroek@cc.usu.edu.