Greater gun control is not the answer

Gun Control-01

Raise your glasses, and perhaps your firearms—the president may be leading us down a  road suspiciously similar to Prohibition.

On Jan. 16, President Obama urged Congress to pass coming legislation that would moderate the use of firearms.

If Congress passes the proposed legislation, it will mean three things for all Americans: military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will be banned, background checks will become more extensive and gun-trafficking laws will be increasingly tighter.

While many analysts are skeptical of Congress actually passing the aforementioned legislation, Obama has signed 23 executive orders designed to immediately curb gun violence.

Among other things, the executive orders help close the loopholes for background checks mandating that information be more accessible.

Additionally, law enforcement officers will be required to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

There’s no denying that stricter gun laws could prevent a year reminiscent of 2012, one filled with empty shot gun shells and tear-stained faces.

But is history doomed to repeat itself?

During the roaring 20s, Americans weren’t facing potentially tighter gun legislation, but rather the increasing presence of alcohol.

With the number of intoxicated citizens rising, the government sought to limit the consumption and manufacturing of the beverage.

Eventually, moderation became a thing of the past, and the government sought to ban the drink entirely. Hello, 18th Amendment and goodbye troubles. Or, so they thought.

Alcohol could still be found by those who knew where to look for it—in the hands of organized crime.

Suddenly, the criminals were in control, and the laws themselves became a mockery of sobriety.

By 1933, the 21st Amendment was ratified, repealing the 18th Amendment. Drinks all around.

Even now, nearly a month after the most recent tragedy that is still tender in the hearts of this great nation, the rebellion is starting.

While the pacifier of promised legislation may be enough to subdue some, it has put many on the defense.

CNN reported the reaction of several gun-owners who felt the new legislation would be a denial of their rights.

James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a gun training and accessory company, posted a now-viral video urging his fellow patriots to be ready for a fight should the President’s administration ban firearms.

“I am not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns. If it goes one inch further, I’m gonna start killing people.”

Though Yeager later apologized for his angry outburst, this reaction illustrates the counterproductive nature of what the Obama administration is trying to do.

Clearly, the issue of greater gun control is not the answer. Instead of inciting a nation into a potentially nation-wide stand-off, we should focus our energy and resources on what seems to have been the crux of the last several tragedies—mental health.

Luckily, Obama’s executive orders include a proposed $300 million in increased mental health services such as $50 million to train new mental health professionals, $25 million for treatment for adults ages 16 to 25 with mental health and other substance abuse issues and $15 million for training for teachers to recognize mental health issues in their students.

It seems like Obamacare may save the day after all.

And that is where our focus must lie—on finding a way to help the sick rather than curtail the rights of the average citizen.

By pooling our energy and resources together to improve mental health services, we can potentially alleviate an amendment that could repeal our right to defend.


Dissenting Opinion: Even First Amendment includes regulations


Let’s be very clear; we do not believe in abolishing the right to bear arms.

Nor do we believe for a moment that President Obama and his Cabinet intend to go down that path.

Using Prohibition as an example to scare people into fighting against the recently passed executive orders and the proposed gun control laws is manipulative at its core and puts forth a highly unlikely hypothetical situation.

Even the First Amendment to the Constitution, the right of freedom of speech, has certain regulations to protect citizens from slander, libel and to protect our troops from potentially sensitive information being leaked.

If the First Amendment has rules about what the freedom of speech allows, then so should the right to bear arms.

Having said that, firearms are not the core issue behind the multiple shootings.

Gun control is merely treating symptoms of a bigger problem, but until we can find a cure for the yet undiagnosed sickness infesting our nation, all we can do is treat the symptoms.

'Greater gun control is not the answer' have 8 comments

  1. January 22, 2013 @ 9:52 pm Dan Sisco

    I fail to see how James Yeager’s angry outburst “illustrates the counterproductive nature of what the Obama administration is trying to do.” If anything it reinforces the need for stricter regulations, as too many psychopaths are allowed easy access to firearms.
    Here’s a tip for the pro-gun community: Extremists like Alex Jones and Chris Yeager shouldn’t be leading the charge against gun control because it makes everyone (even moderates) who share their views look insane, and only ends up as fodder for The Daily Show.


  2. January 23, 2013 @ 10:30 pm Matt Nielsen

    Being from a family involved in the gun industry, I have grown up knowing how important the right to keep and bear arms is. The people who want guns WILL find a way to get them . I agree that prohibition part 2 will happen.


  3. January 24, 2013 @ 10:58 am clurker

    “Luckily, Obama’s executive orders include a proposed $300 million in increased mental health services such as $50 million to train new mental health professionals, $25 million for treatment for adults ages 16 to 25 with mental health and other substance abuse issues and $15 million for training for teachers to recognize mental health issues in their students.

    It seems like Obamacare may save the day after all.”


    Question: Where is the government getting this money for Obamacare? When we are peering over the edge of a fiscal cliff, isn’t this gun control issue nothing more than a red herring? Sequestration is going to minimize our ability to provide national defense, which is actually the federal government’s responsibility. National healthcare is not. Obamacare is nothing but a bankrupting tax. Justice Roberts clarified that it is indeed a tax.

    Putting people in the mental health system under Obamacare is not going to fix our gun or violent crime rate. It is simply putting them in a system that is going to deny them gun rights because they needed treatment for a mental illness. Mental illnesses cannot be viewed in the same plane of severity which leaves the patient feeling despair over whether to seek treatment and give up gun rights. However, having doctors under Obama’s recent executive orders probe patients as to how many and what types of guns are in the home is a breech of confidentiality and a gross violation of privacy. It is meant to put people in a system where their legal, private activities are monitored. Again, a gross violation of privacy.

    I agree with many of the author’s assertions but we should not be fooled by seemingly good intentions put forth by this administration.


  4. January 24, 2013 @ 1:07 pm Ryan Crockett

    What I’ve always found funny about this debate is why the type of gun is a factor. If we’re controlling where the guns go, that makes sense, we don’t want guns in the hands of the irresponsible and the deranged. But regardless if a gun has one shot or 165, it can still take a human life. The responsible gun owners who often fight gun control laws simply want to use the guns they’ve always used, without government interference. So check their backgrounds, test them, certify them. They’re almost all going to check out fine..That’s one of their points, but once they check out, just give them their guns. If they’re not going to shoot a six shot pistol at someone, they’re not going to fire an assault rifle at anyone either.


  5. January 24, 2013 @ 1:21 pm Shannon Shields Muhlestein

    Say good bye to doctor-patient confidentiality. The new executive orders say that health care providers must ignore HIPPA and report to the government on their patient’s physical/mental state. If for some reason they decide you or someone in your household is not “fit” to handle a firearm, then they may be confiscated. Something as common as depression could be a reason. Everyone goes through some depression at various points in their lives. Maybe your daughter gets really bad PMS. Too bad Mom and Dad, she might get her hands on your gun and tear the town apart.


  6. January 24, 2013 @ 4:42 pm Connie Gifford

    Criminals will always have guns. And they will just attack even harder once they know their prey is unarmed. I disagree with Obama completely, and his comment about using executive order to sidestep congress should show everyone else that he does not want to be President, but that he wants to be King.


  7. January 29, 2013 @ 9:52 am Scott Austin

    What a great article! You are completely right. Guns are not the main problem and I hope (and it seems to be…at least for now) that Obama is conscience of that. Violent video games (in excess), mental problems, anti-social or the socially inept, ex-convicts, etc. are more and more common in the world today. These things are the REAL problem…not guns. I would be a lot more scared of someone with a knife than a gun.
    With more and more horrible events taking place, now is the time for more of the “good guys” to be armed. But there has to be some more instruction on how to operate, clean, handle and store these weapons. So for all of those gun nerds out there (including myself) it is time to bite the bullet and support efforts to have more training and instruction on how to do these things.
    Have common sense when using weapons (wether for sport or for hunting). Know the people you shoot with before you shoot with them and teach them. Be kind and courteous to others that may not have as many friends or may not connect socially with others. Help those who are addicted to violent video games to get off there butt and do something valuable with there time. I am convinced that the more kindness shown to one another (our brothers and sisters) the less violence will occur and the better our future will be for US, our children and generations to come.


  8. April 23, 2013 @ 11:17 am Jane Alexander

    I don’t think greater control is the answer either. The shooting sprees that occur will not stop because the shooters get their guns from someone else. It is usually not their own gun. Banning guns won’t help anyone. We have to get down to the root of the problem. Mental Health car. The shooters are almost always mentally unwell and untreated. They often times do not have the resources available or the support system needed to help them cope with everyday life. So they get frustrated and angry and have no way to express themselves, so they turn to violence. We need universal mental health care. If these people were able to get the help they needed, there wouldn’t be unstable people running around shooting people.


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright 2015 BYU-I Scroll