America faces a surprising amount of national issues to date, yet the most common tie between every debate worth mentioning involves the good of the populace. The presence of guns throughout America’s history has led to it becoming a staple in the country’s culture. Many accept such a concept with pride and joy, other see it as a burden and ultimately poison in society. Back and forth, people argue over whether or not the presence of firearms should be controlled. People have come to look at the debate as far too much of a stark contrast in perspectives while there are actually many grey areas, which is why it can be important to approach the debate from a more statistical standpoint in order to be avoid being too opinionated or passionate. This article will focus on bringing to light many of the sides of the debate people do not consider when targeting or defending guns.
One of the pro-gun sides of the debate believe strict gun laws have a more negative impact on society than positive, and look towards the nation’s history and modern situations to show how gun control may affect America in an unfortunate way. In Chicago, despite having gun shops outlawed and with no provisions that allow citizens to publicly carry firearms the city has an astonishing murder rate of around 18 people for every 100,000 Chicago citizens. This is over five times the national average of around 4 people per 100,000 American citizens. Meanwhile, every other U.S. city remains relatively peaceful by comparison, despite having less gun restrictions.
The issue of firearm violence itself has even been moderately distorted to exclude statistics and concepts that shape the way citizens look towards the problem. Many people look towards the sheer numbers of murders that occur within the U.S. and are astonished, yet when taken into account the population and density of the country itself, homicide rates total out to around 4 people for every 100,000. America itself is greatly populated, and out of any populace there is practically guaranteed to be murderous individuals…yet what matters is how the number of killers measures when compared to the total pool of individuals. The remarkable aspect of this is that America has almost the greatest number of firearms per household out of many other nations of similar population, and yet continues to, out of the world’s 218 countries, remain in the one hundreds place for number of homicides.
Regarding history, every shooting massacre, with the exception of one, over the course of the past 70 years has occurred on property and in buildings that were labeled gun-free zones. Even the creation of waiting periods for gun ownership have had little effect, as Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter, was fully discouraged from waiting to buy his own gun due to impatience, yet was not at all convinced away from illegally obtaining a gun and continuing with the massacre. This evidence has been presented by gun-rights advocates to show how gun-restrictions have simply not had the effect on the United States that people are hoping for.
These statistics are often swept aside as people address the topic while acting too headstrong and showing too much passion. Those against guns continually converse through referring towards the morality and concepts of guns themselves, while also predicting and claiming what they are certain will happen with less guns. Meanwhile, those for guns too often focus on addressing the Constitution and freedoms guaranteed in the past by the government, and present their own views on what will happen with more guns. Both have become the substances of many debates; despite how morality, the Constitution, and predictions are often re-shaping based on personal beliefs and individual policies, thus not providing concrete reinforcement for either side. Ultimately, this is why people are often so deadset on their own views, leading to arguments that go nowhere. They are focusing on topics that are not reliable, and that remain different among every individual. It is in statistics that arguments are truly able to be settled, and people are able to modify their political perspectives without feeling forced or passionately persuaded.