A Modest Solution To The Gun Control Debate

It is a tragic fact of modern society that gun violence has reached the height that it has; hardly a day goes by where one does not hear some report of a homicide, a standoff with police, or a mass shooting.

Several members of the United States government have presented their own solutions to the appalling issue that plagues our nation: intelligent, well-thought out plans that allow for an easy solution to a complex societal issue. Indeed, it is quite astounding that that the problem has been allowed to continue for so long, when today’s modern politicians have clearly identified such simple ways to cure the disease. In the vein of these solutions, and upon considering the problem at hand, I have decided to make what I consider a modest solution to the issue. 

It is widely agreed upon that one of the key elements in fighting the mass shooting epidemic is identifying the root cause of the violence. Is it far-right rhetoric? Violent video games? Mental health concerns? All have been claimed, all have been disputed. On looking back, however, at the appalling number of mass shootings in the past few years, I think I have found a common denominator between all of them that would allow us to answer the gun control question once and for all. There exists, in American society, a specific group who should, under no circumstances, be permitted to purchase weapons.

And those people are men. 

According to the FBI, 88 percent of murders, 99 percent of forcible rapes, 87 percent of robberies, and 77 percent of aggravated assaults are done by men. In total, 80 percent of all violent crimes committed in the United States are committed by males. Not only that, but 86 percent of all suicides involving a gun (suicides being the majority of gun deaths) are committed by men. There have been 115 mass shootings between 1982 and 2019 (a mass shooting being defined as any single attack, carried out in a public place, where four or more people are killed); only three of which were carried out by women. 

I have, of course, heard the arguments made by the NRA and the like-minded politicians that happen to derive so much of their campaign funds from that organization, and I feel a need to address them. 

People need guns to defend their families from home invasion.  This is an excellent point.

Let women do it. 

If the government takes away all our guns, then all it does is pave the way for tyranny.

Another excellent point. If the government becomes tyrannical, I myself shall be looking to the women in my community to lead the revolution.

In many mass shooting cases, the problem could have been solved, if only there had been someone there who was armed to defend themselves.

True. And, since women make up about 50 percent of the people killed in mass shootings, it is more than likely that an armed woman will be there to defend the innocent population. 

Sure, there are problems. People can still get guns illegally. Men might steal guns from their wives. But honestly, no matter what gun control measures you implement, these are always going to be problems. The best we can do is prevent men from getting their hands on guns legally, and thus protect the rest of the world from their violent impulses. 

And I am happy to admit that I am clearly not the only person who thinks this way. Chris Cox, one of the NRA’s top lobbyists, told the following story at the Republican National Convention in 2015. 

“Imagine a young mother at home with her baby, when a violent predator kicks the door in. The police will do the best to get there quickly, but their average response time is 11 minutes. So the question is, should she be able to defend herself with a firearm? Of course.”

Bravo, Mr. Cox. It is good to know that, in these trying times, the NRA is not thinking about the millions of men donating to their cause to keep the government from taking away their assault rifles; no, the NRA is worried about the women who need the guns to protect themselves from the people who would seek to harm them. 

It is said in the Second Amendment that all citizens shall have the right to bear arms; however, for the first century and a half of the United States of America, certain rights and privileges entitled to all “citizens” were given only to one sex. With that in mind, putting the right to bear arms in the hands of only one sex would not be such a large leap; the men who have borne arms before have clearly proven themselves unfit to wield them.