Arguments Against Gun Control Reform

With the growing number of mass shootings in America and violence around the world, the issue of gun control reform has been widely debated across all political parties. The arguments against reform almost always boil down to citing the constitution's second amendment; the right for citizens to keep and bear arms, whereas proponents of reform suggest the installment of new laws ranging anywhere to a simple mental screening before a person is given a license to complete withdrawal and ban on any form of assault weapons and guns, citing that it is far too easy for an individual to purchase a weapon and ammunition and then proceed to shoot middle school students and their teachers. In any case the topic is more complicated than either side will
enjoy admitting; it is important to also consider the steps other countries around the world are taking to limit gun violence, keep in mind how criminals will react if either sides' demands are met- what steps will they take to obtain weapons, and what will they try to do if they know their guns will never be fully banned- and also to consider the difference between a police officer's need to carry a weapon and a citizen's right to do the same.
One of the recurring points in the NRA's article is that any kind of gun legislation reform would yield no different results, owing to the assumption that criminals will merely find ways whether legal or illegal to get assault weapons (2-3).
While they do raise a reasonable point, the NRA unintentionally create the question, if criminals can find a way to get anything, then why should we make anything illegal? For instance, the making and distribution of bombs and other explosives is regulated. People who make or distribute explosives must have special licenses and be screened, and the same goes for anyone who buys explosive materials. Not only that but certain explosive materials are carefully and anyone buying large or suspicious amounts are immediately flagged. Should the monitoring and restriction of explosive materials be done away with entirely because criminals and terrorists can and do find ways to get them? No, by restricting the access and monitoring the traffic of explosive materials law enforcement are not only able to more quickly catch criminals; the constant alert also discourages other would-be criminals from trying to create bombs in effect stopping crimes before they even begin. While applying the same reform would not stop all criminals from getting assault weapons, it is important to recognize and not discount the fact that the practice would still reduce crime and save many
lives.
Last year there were over twenty mass shootings in the United States; however whenever such a tragedy happens the entire discussion of banning assault weapons, or limiting magazine capacity, or any kind of reform is completely shut down by people who cite the results of previous reforms, calling them ineffective, when in fact those very reforms had been greatly limited and watered down.
An argument used many times against gun is that bans on assault weapons and large magazines simply don't work 2). However for many countries around the world this statement is entirely false. In the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, not only do all of these countries have strict gun laws but they also have the lowest death by gun rates, violent and accidental. In Australia during the 1980's the Prime Minister at the time initiated wide sweep of gun control. Since the 1970s Australia had had thirteen "mass shootings”; in the almost thirty years since the enactment of their gun control reform laws Australia has not had a single mass
shooting.
One other claim by the NRA is that because police officers "can carry extra magazines on [their] duty belt, and have a rifle or shotgun in [their] patrol car.” (4), seeming to claim that if a police officer should feel the need for such extensive protection why then shouldn't a private citizen also be given the right to do the same. While it is debatable whether average police officers should have access to so many weapons, applying the logic of a police officer needing protection to that of an average citizen is not an equal comparison. Police officers are required by virtue of their job to enter uncertain and dangerous environments and because of this should and have the means to protect themselves and citizens from harm should the need arise. While there absolutely are situations where it is necessary for a citizen to have a weapon for self-defense, the same more often than not is simply not the case for the average person. An average citizen does not need to go into the dangerous environments police are required to enter, and more often than not when a citizen does try to intervene in such a situation they are either injured themselves or escalate the situation, putting more people in harm's way.
Clearly gun control reform is a diverse and complicated topic, and when discussing it it is important to try and have an understanding of both sides reasoning, one cannot deny that there is a need for an open, in depth conversation about what kind of legislation changes we can make that not only protects our citizens' right to bear arms, but also protects the same people from criminals who would use such weapons against them, understanding always that although criminals will try to find ways to obtain weapons, that does not negate the need for reform, that weapons bans around the world have been enforced and been successful, and to not confuse the needs of law enforcement officers with the needs of the average citizen.