In response to the horrific shootout at Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 20 children and 6 adults were brutally murdered by a gunman, President Obama has issue 23 executive orders aimed at bringing down violent crimes through gun control . However, gun control will not result in lower crime rates, nor will it serve to protect innocent civilians who are mostly unarmed. Most of the 23 executive orders will not serve any purpose except to increase tax spending and wasting resources and manpower on an ill-directed initiative.
The president also requires a revision of gun locks and safety standards under the Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, most guns already have locks that work. This order cannot force people to lock their weapons. Further, a mentally ill gunman can easily find information through the worldwide web on not only how to unlock any gun but also how to operate it! If a person is intent on killing someone, locks will not stop them. The president also issued order that ban the sale of military style weapons. This would include the AR-15, which is similar to an AK-47. However, it should be noted that Lanza did not use the AR-15 to kill children, he used 4 perfectly legal handguns. He also tried to buy the gun but was denied. Hence, having assault class weapons removed from gun stores does not really serve the purpose of bringing down crime.
Another order asks for magazine capacity to be brought down to 10 rounds instead of 30. Anyone who knows anything about guns will know that changing magazines requires just a few seconds, barely enough for potential victims to tackle the gunman or run for cover. If, like Lanza, the perpetrator has multiple handguns, they would have several rounds at their disposal regardless of the legal limit. If a person has planned a massacre, he will quite obviously be prepared to shoot over a dozen or more people. If the intent is to murder one person, then 10 rounds are more than sufficient. Hence, limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is pointless.
The president also aims to provide ‘incentives’ to schools that hire school resource officers. While this law may safeguard schools that are willing to make the investment, it ill not protect all schools. Instead, if the president had revoked the Gun Free Zones Ban, allowing teachers and administrative staff to carry concealed weapons, they would be much better equipped to defend themselves as well as students. A great example can be seen in Joel Myrick, assistant principal at Pearl High School, Mississippi, who used his .45 semi-automatic to subdue and restrain a gunman who killed two students and injured 7 in 1997. Calls for banning guns were raised back then but did not prevent the December 2012 shooting in Connecticut. If school staff was allowed to carry weapons, schools will not have to make any investments and the government will not have to spend tax payer money on ‘incentives’.
The main reason why gun control initiatives to lower crime will not work is scope of such laws. Criminals are unlikely to opt to purchase a registered weapon; it is law abiding citizens who do so. Hence, stricter gun control laws would result in fewer citizens bearing arms to defend themselves, while criminals who target them will still have access to arms through the black market. Instead of protecting citizens, gun control would leave them all the more vulnerable to attacks, as an unarmed civilian is more likely to fall victim of a premeditated attack than one who owns weapon. Gun control would, hence, not have a substantial impact on lowering violent crimes.
Works Cited
Keller, Ryan. "Politicians call for new gun bans after Connecticut shooting." 17 December 2012. Examiner. 11 February 2013
Ungar, Rick. "Here are the 23 executive orders on gun safety signed today by the president." 16 January 2013. Forbes. 11 February 2013
