Christopher Lennox Failure of Gun Control

I would like for you to understand that we, as a whole, do not wish for anymore gun control efforts. They do not work. We all agree that there is a violence problem in America, and that firearms are used in violent acts, but no amount of gun control will ever solve that problem. Our Position is that gun control does not work, and that violence of all types is the real problem. I will attempt to prove my case, using common sense knowledge and facts. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, gangs, the United Kingdom and Australia, Chicago, and Baltimore will all be my examples. I will further attempt to convince you that the real problem is not guns, but violence in itself and mental illness. I will then leave it up to your readers to make an informed decision. After the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was enacted, the crime rate did not go down. The reason, it was just a political move by beaucrates that did not and do not understand reality. They are afraid of these weapons, and so they banned them. However, so called "assault weapons" only comprised about 6% of all gun related crimes. If gun control worked, then why did the violence continue? Why was there gun violence at all after 1994? Because the people who commit the crimes, which can be argued that the violence comes from gangs, already break the law. So why would, even given the chance, turn in the weapons that they have illegally? No gang would ever turn in weapons given the chance; therefore gun violence, even with new gun control laws, would not decline. If anything, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, or any other ban like it, only hurts the law abiding citizen. Why is it that the law abiding citizen needs to suffer at the hands of Congress because of the actions of a few individuals that conduct the crimes? Most bans like the 1994 Assault weapons ban limit the type of firearms owned. However, that would

violate the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled in D.C. v Heller that the 2nd Amendment does indeed protect the individual gun owner and that it also protects firearms that are in "common use." This would mean any semi-automatic firearms on sale today. There are a couple of places I would like to look at that have very strict gun control laws, and the ones I will talk about here are Chicago, Baltimore, the United Kingdom and Australia. According to the FBI, Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the country; leading some to dub it "Chiraq," with a total of 500 murders in 2012; that is more than one murder a day. While this number is down significantly, outside of D.C, it has the strictest gun control laws in the country! How is it, with the laws that already are in place, can the violence be so high? This brings me back to the root cause, violence in itself. Look at Baltimore, Maryland; both city and state have very strict gun laws and in 2012, had 217 murders. That is just shy of one murder a day! How can the murder rate be so high in spite of all the gun control laws? Because the root problem is not guns, it is violence in and of itself. Both the UK and Australia have banned almost all types of firearms. And yes, the gun violence rate has gone down. But the overall violent crime rates are higher than that of the US. This proves that even with almost no gun ownership, violent crimes will not get better. History shows that if anything, it will get worse. Again, the issue is not guns, it is violence in itself. Mental illness needs to be addressed as well. The last two of three mass shootings involved mentally ill shooters. It would be the all three, but the Aurora shooter is still on trial, and he is using the insanity plea. How is it that these individuals had firearms if they were mentally ill? In the Sandy hook shooting, the mentally ill shooter took the firearm from his mother, whom he had murdered, and went to the school and opened fire, killing 20 children and 6 adults. The Naval Yard shooter was hearing voices, claiming that men were following him and

shooting him with radio waves in an effort to keep him awake. All these are indicators of a mental illness. Reports say that he had to go to two firearms stores to purchases the shotgun he used in the shooting. The first store he went to prevented him from buying a firearm, but the second, did not. When a background check was conducted by the shop, they found no felonies; which are all background checks look for. The thing that needs to be addressed here is not gun control, but early diagnosis of mental illness, and the sharing of that information with the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) so that people with mental illness cannot buy firearms. The real problem, as I have stated many times in this paper, is violence and in a few cases, mental illness. Now I cannot tell you how to solve the violence problem; it is something far beyond my understanding of how to fix. It has been my goal to show that guns are not the problem, that violence is, and further gun control laws would not stop, nor lower the violent crimes in this country. I have shown proof of this through examples of strict gun control laws or an all-out ban on firearms did nothing to lower the violent crimes in those countries or cities, that the true problem is violence and mental illness. And so I say to you, the editor and the readers, that no more gun control measures need to be taken. There are enough on the books as is, and more would do little to stop the violence.