Last week, the Senate voted down President Obama’s proposed bill that would increase security measures around gun ownership. I think this move is absurd and all in all a bad step for our country.
Wyoming is a conservative state and residents hold a few key points near and dear to their hearts — freedom from government, doing things their own way and the freedom to exercise second amendment rights — so many Wyomingites likely were happy by the Senate’s vote.
But, guns cause violence. Many argue that people are the cause of violence, which I agree is a plausible argument, especially after last week’s horrific bombing incident in Boston. However, most of the day-to-day violence involves guns. Sandy Hook? Aurora Theater? Portland Mall shooting? All of these, among others, just happened over the past year. And throughout the country, many more people die due to guns than are reported on national news.
In our country we have regulations and laws for many other things, so why is it such a problem to have stricter gun regulations? Most people do not complain about the laws regulating purchase of tobacco and alcohol. Guns pose a greater threat to safety than either of these things, especially tobacco, yet it is easier for someone to get ahold of them.
Being that guns are a deadly weapon, why should they be handed over to just anyone? This is not the case in many other countries. In fact, the most peaceful countries in the world have stricter gun regulations than the United States does. And I do not think that happened by chance.
Let’s look at the peaceful nation of Denmark. Denmark ranked as the second most peaceful country in the world, as well as the happiest. According to gunpolicy.org, Denmark has an average of about 12 firearms per 100 people, whereas the USA has an average of 88 firearms per 100 people.
In the United States, it is fairly easy for almost anyone to own or possess a gun. Private possession of handguns is pretty common, and the possession of semi-automatic weapons is allowable. However, one thing to keep in mind is that gun laws are regulated per state; what flies in Wyoming doesn’t necessarily fly in New York. (These two states have very different open carry laws, for instance. In Wyoming you can carry open or concealed weapons without a permit. However, open carry is banned in most New York counties.)
Gun rights in Denmark are quite the opposite. A person can own a handgun or a semi-automatic weapon only with special permission. Also, applicants must show a true reason for needing a gun license — and the accompanying gun — in order to carry in the first place. The Danes also are required to go through background checks similar to those proposed by President Obama, ensuring that gun carriers are mentally sound.
I think that the USA should use exemplary social democratic societies, such as Denmark, as an example for how to live. Do I think our country should become exactly like Denmark? Well, no. I realize that Denmark’s model would not completely work for us. Hunting and sport shooting are not only activities, but ways of life weaved into the fabric of some Americans’ lives. I do not wish to take that away. But what is the harm, really, in going through more intensive background checks?
This is not about taking away your second amendment right, it is about protecting another even more important right of countless others: the right to live, and secondarily, to live in a society where they feel safe.
