iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ellen Grace Jones

GET UPDATES FROM Ellen Grace Jones
 

Why the US Should Not Ban Guns

Posted: 19/12/2012 00:00

That sound? The collective hand-wringing of thousands who are up-in-arms demanding Obama introduce serious gun legislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Michael Moore and Piers Morgan began as unofficial poster boys for the action and now Mayor Bloomberg has weighed in, pushing for tighter gun control claiming, "The president and congress can and should address [gun control] at the same time they're reaching an agreement on avoiding the fiscal cliff."

Today, as a hungry pack of demonstrators circled the NRA's Washington HQ, it's looking likely Obama will attack the Second Amendment as the White House promised a comprehensive series of measures including gun control legislation.

I hate guns. I wish they didn't exist. But they do. In the wake of the Connecticut shootings this mass knee-jerk call to impose strict firearm laws is an understandable reaction. Unfortunately it isn't the right one.

If stricter gun control was the solution then cities with stricter gun legislation would be the safest, right? Wrong. Let's look at some facts shall we? Chicago boasts some of the USA's most draconian gun laws but 10 people were shot in Chicago on Friday alone. It's considered 'the deadliest global city' and the murder rate is 25% higher than last year.

Post-Dunblane when guns were outlawed here in the UK, six years later gun-crime had more than doubled. By 2009 gun crime had escalated by 89%.

Down Under, gun murders rose by 19% and armed robberies by 69% after a gun ban was introduced in 1997.

And thus the story goes.

Prohibition; in whatever form, does not work. It didn't work for alcohol, it certainly doesn't work for drugs and as evidence shows, will not work for guns either. All outlawing does is willingly gift supply and control to gang cartels and remove things from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals and the mentally ill intent of murder or mass-crime will still be able to get their hands on guns, no matter what the law.

Adam Lanza broke three Connecticut gun control laws; had more been in place would not have made a difference. The shooting will still have happened.

The Newtown tragedy is a perfect example of problem-reaction-solution; an event which causes people to request the end result the powers that be desire. We can very clearly see a police-state grid being unrolled across the USA and beyond - is it easier to do that against an armed population or an unarmed one? Fundamentally gun control is not for the protection of people but for the preservation of tyrannical entities.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." So said that nice little fellow, Adolf. In Nazi Germany, pre-Holocaust, gun laws were introduced which banned Jewish people from the manufacture or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

There is no doubt Obama will exploit this harrowing event to chip away at the Second Amendment.

The Connecticut massacre is undeniably tragic but what it has disturbingly revealed is that people are only outraged because it was not sanctioned by the state. As Obama wiped away his fake tear, I wondered, would he ever shed one were 20 Pakistani children murdered in a school by one of his drone attacks? Statism has a sickening dehumanising effect on how we perceive other humans that aren't close to home or 'like us.'

Sandy Hook is of course worthy of the sympathy it's been in receipt of, however the irrational way we collectively emote and seethe over one type of human loss whilst remain indifferent to others because it's somehow a bi-product of state-sanctioned imperialist war leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

The unfolding weeks will be interesting. I reiterate: I detest firearms, I wish they did not exist. I'm the antithesis of a trigger-happy, gun-totin' shooter but to support the banning of them - as history shows - will only spell disaster.

 

Follow Ellen Grace Jones on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EllenGraceJones

FOLLOW POLITICS
That sound? The collective hand-wringing of thousands who are up-in-arms demanding Obama introduce serious gun legislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Michael Moore and Piers Morgan began a...
That sound? The collective hand-wringing of thousands who are up-in-arms demanding Obama introduce serious gun legislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Michael Moore and Piers Morgan began a...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 369
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
22:02 on 08/02/2013
The using is not planning on banning firearms, but restricting the sales of certain types of firearms and ammunition. Starting from a false premise is not fair for all sides on the discussion on how to reduced death due to firearms.
21:29 on 08/01/2013
Had to laugh at Ellen's tweet to David Mitchell.

"Sorry @RealDMitchell your Olympics article is so politically, socially misjudged. Try reading mine for some home truths.....".

Ellen appears to have no self-awareness whatsoever, and her idiocy knows no bounds. Can anyone from HP explain why she is still hired by them?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
malcolmoz
14:23 on 29/01/2013
explain yourself. You are all talk and no facts.
18:55 on 30/01/2013
Ellen doesn't have the sense to interpret facts. I don't have to explain myself. I don't have a column supporting David Icke. I don't tweet that Sandy Hook was a fake, and point to a youtube video as 'smoking gun'. I don''t believe in a reptillian illuminati. I'm not screaming 'COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ' and 'STRAW MAN' like they are the first concepts I've ever learnt whilst latching onto conspiracy theories to attempt to give my idiotic hipster brain some intellectual credence. I don't add the hashtag 'hitler' to my all my tweets, regardless of their content. And it's a disgrace that the HP let's this awful, awful person have a platform.
photo
unfoxworthy
We:ScottOlsens,the misfits,out to change the world
23:37 on 30/12/2012
Luckily
the founding fathers were heads and shoulders wiser over our present "do nothin'" politicians.
They must have known how corrupt their system of govt was bound to get with many years of evolution and manipulation.
Once the 1% took everything...
they KNEW...it would take a revolution to even things up.
Although they never said it...they planned for it...or allowed us - the 99% - to do so.
I am always amazed at the wisdom of the founders of this country.
02:05 on 30/12/2012
This is ridiculous. Really? Chicago has a strict anti gun law but you can buy a gun from a state and ship it on in. Hello? Are you kidding me? Heroin is against the law everywhere but you can get it pretty easily on the street. The point is that we are never going to be able to take away all guns but we can make it very, very difficult for anyone but the people with the most responsible and cleanest record to own them. Right now anyone - including a felon - can buy them at a gun show. Your logic makes zero sense. Until we stop making this a STATE issue we will have more innocent children dying. Comprende? It is TIME to regulate and initiate taxes, safety checks, ensure that owners are responsible about who has access to their guns - you know how many kids die a year playing with their parent's guns? Toddlers? It is out of control and it IS the time to regulate weapons. It is far past the time. Why all the issue with regulation of guns? I really do not understand why that bothers people? Would you not give up your second amendment rights to give the parents of those gorgeous children back their children? I would in a nanosecond.
15:42 on 31/12/2012
"Would you not give up your second amendment rights to give the parents of those gorgeous children back their children? I would in a nanosecond."

I would, that is if the 2nd amendment and my ownership of firearms were actually the cause of the tragedy (and by doing so would completely remove the chances of this ever happening ever again). But you present a "false dilemma". I do however, respect your right to be heard.
21:48 on 28/12/2012
Ellen Grace Jones is a very stupid person.
15:38 on 31/12/2012
Oh.. very good "argument". Name calling (unaccompanied by any form of counter-argument) is always persuasive.
17:17 on 02/01/2013
No, she is . Don't worry, I'm correct here.
15:38 on 23/12/2012
obama's fake tear? WOW! you really are a heartless stubborn insecured republican.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
malcolmoz
14:25 on 29/01/2013
anyone who doesn't agree with you is a republican?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:05 on 23/12/2012
If Chicago has a higher murder rate than Cuidad Juarez I will show my bum in Marks & Spencer's window. World's deadliest City my rear end! According to the inter web the US city with the highest murder rate is New Orleans at #21 on the list. Chicago doesn't make the top 50.

And I love how you quote Hitler. He said everything bad in the world was because of the Jews, He wasn't right about that either.
photo
UnPerro
Social liberalism, Fiscal restraint = Common sense
17:38 on 26/12/2012
Chicago was named the world's deadliest "Global city."
Now, I don't know what that term means, but I assume that means that Ciudad Juarez and New Orleans are not considered global cities.

Still; the fact is that Chicago has a huge number of gun murders despite its laws. Over 400 school-age children alone were shot in that city in 2012.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
19:37 on 26/12/2012
Thank you for the clarification. I think I misunderstood what was meant by global city. Cheers.
Dreadful, dreadful figures btw. 400 kids is heart breaking.
02:10 on 30/12/2012
Guns killed those kids. I rest my case. Legal or illegal - they should be monitored, regulated and taxed. Then we can afford to get more cops on the street - ever been to NYC? We don't have the same issues. Cleaned that up fast. There are solutions but people have to be prepared to stop splitting hairs. Guns kill people and having them on you in the city or anywhere except hunting or in your own home should result in a five year stint in jail. Nobody should be packing on the street unless you are cop.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cotman
11:48 on 23/12/2012
"Post-Dunblane when guns were outlawed here in the UK, six years later gun-crime had more than doubled. By 2009 gun crime had escalated by 89%."
These sort of statistics do not mean much if the magnitude is not given: in 2011 there were 58 gun homicides in the UK meaning there were around 25 at the time of Dunblane if this person's statistics are correct; at the same time in the USA there were 8500. If there was one gun death then two the following year would mean that the rate would have gone up 100%!! . It is the magnitude which really counts. If we had laws which allowed people to carry concealed weapons to be carried how many gun deaths would there be here - including accidental deaths which constitutes the greatest number in USA
In this the UK it is crime to carry a loaded gun. Loaded guns should be allowed only in restricted licensed areas.
Regarding the use of drones: while I agree with this person's sentiment the reference is irrelevant in connection with gun control laws.
photo
Danish5666
What makes life worthwhile isn't measured by GDP
11:31 on 23/12/2012
"hungry pack of demonstrators circled", "Obama will attack", "hand-wringing", "who are up-in-arms" objectivity not so much. The author seems is a bit confused by the difference between the availability of guns and gun control laws. In essence her premise is having no guns they still means people are getting killed by guns. Brilliant thinking.
08:08 on 22/12/2012
Why even discuss a ban? The US supreme court has ruled unequivocally in favor of an individual's right to arms for otherwise lawful purposes, and repeatedly held that any form of blanket ban is unconstitutional. It makes no difference if a ban is a good idea or not, it is unconstitutional.

From Heller 2007: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition... would fail constitutional muster."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
12:07 on 22/12/2012
Your quote is from 2007, but as I understand it, the second amendment was written in 1789, ratified in 1791. Times change, so do US governments. Other amendments, such as the thirteenth to abolish slavery in 1865, were obviously written to change what went on before. Where would President Obama have been if he lived in 1789? I don't think guns were quite so efficient in killing people in the eighteenth century, the population was much smaller and in the wild west there must have been little alternative to doing your own self-defence. Unless you're saying that whatever people decided in the past, whether right or wrong, has to stand forever, perhaps it's time the second amendment was changed?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cotman
11:56 on 23/12/2012
A paradigm which is difficult to change. In 2011 there were 58 homicides in the UK; in the USA there were 8532. Around 20,000 people are killed in the USA every year. Most are accidental. In Europe the deaths are even lower than in the UK. So on these figures you do not reckon a change in paradigm is not required as difficult as it may be to carry out?
02:17 on 30/12/2012
Some people will never really understand what this means. I'd support a ban - essentially what you are saying is that guns are legal for THE HOME - well then....where are the laws punishing those who take their guns outside the home? The 2nd amendment was created for an entirely different reason. We now have police forces and a stable democracy with very little chance of a dictator taking power.....why do we need guns? I was told by a police officer that should I own a gun that "you better make sure you kill the person who robs your home because otherwise he/she can sue you". Nice, right? A panic room costs a hell of lot less than a gun - it is called a closet with a lock on it. Anyone who is at home and is greeted in the middle of the night by a burglar or home invader will likely have their own gun used on them - think about it. Everyone thinks they are Rambo. It is ridiculous.
00:50 on 22/12/2012
To some, it may sound like a good idea to have a gun for self defence purposes, but surely the problem is this. There is a very small percentage of the overall population (at least in a 'civilised' society) who are both criminals and might decide to use a gun to rob you or in a burglary. There is also an even smaller percentage who go crazy and those who do usually either own the gun or get it from someone else who is also not a criminal, but has a gun. Therefore, if any normally law-abiding citizen is allowed to have a gun, regardless of what checks and permits exist, it results in a much larger number of firearms being accessible in some way to criminals and the unstable, and greatly increases the possibility of one falling into their hands, and so the need for even more guns for self-defence. It is a self-defeating argument.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cotman
12:05 on 23/12/2012
I agree with you. The magnitude of gun deaths in the USA from all causes is enormous due solely to the huge number of uncontrollable guns in circulation. Obama has a huge problem on his hands but he should not shirk the solution - make the carrying of loaded guns in public punishable by severe gaol sentence.
16:58 on 31/12/2012
This all assumes of course that most law abiding gun owners are hopelessly, wholly irresponsible, and that law abiding gun owners in general, should be held responsible for what irresponsible, non law abiding people do. That's pretty much on par with saying, "The more cars there are, the more innocent people will be killed by drunk drivers.. therefore..." Your argument is fatally flawed. I highly suggest educating yourself on just how many law abiding gun owners there are in the US alone, contrasted by how many firearms are stolen, and misused from law abiding gun owners. Please note.. I did NOT say that incidents do not occur in which guns are stolen from lawful owners and misused. The fact that a number of incidents (naturally) such as this occur with humans regarding anything, is not enough to punish responsible people who have not contributed to such an incident.
21:57 on 11/01/2013
As a gun owner, I would gladly be "punished" by some extra paperwork, or safety classes/tests while having to rely on a handgun or 10-round magazine in my semi-automatic rifle... so it could help to make it harder for said criminals and crazy people to get access to guns. The Sandy Hook shooter's mother was a "responsible gun owner" who believed like Rambo, she could (and was likely to) go up alone against an entire military. If she had been smart and removed her weapons from her house, the tragedy either wouldn't have happened before he was committed, or it would have been less tragic like the China attack where 20 or more children were only injured because the crazy attacker had access to only a knife.

If the NRA would put as much effort into making sure only *responsible*, trained citizens owned guns as they put into making sure any person can own any kind of gun (like they used to) we would be able to reduce both the number of accessable guns and the number of gun-related deaths. Columbine, Tuscon and Ft Hood also had "good guys with guns" but that didn't help in any of those cases until the police arrived or the perpetrators had to reload.
18:02 on 21/12/2012
What a load of rubbish. Australia has had an extremely successful gun buy back scheme coupled with a ban on semi-automatic weapons. No multiple 'psycho' killing since. You will never get rid of guns in the US, esp. In redneck states. But at least have a debate started on getting rid of assault weapons!
17:03 on 31/12/2012
What is with the stereotyping? "Rednecks & guns". Look at a map of gun owners in the US. Btw, define "assault weapon".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Kimiko Austin-Rijs
American/European
21:55 on 29/01/2013
What happened in Austraila was not successful at all. Gun violence DOUBLED after that travesty.
12:58 on 21/12/2012
Is HP paying Ellen Grace Jones for this? Awful, awful journalism. The poor grasp of English grammar on display here is the least worrying aspect of this article, but there's really no excuse for not subbing this, for example.

"Adam Lanza broke three Connecticut gun control laws; had more been in place would not have made a difference. The shooting will still have happened."
17:09 on 31/12/2012
What else do you expect from HP?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:43 on 21/12/2012
Ellen Grace Jones said "In Nazi Germany, pre-Holocaust, gun laws were introduced which banned Jewish people from the manufacture or ownership of firearms and ammunition. "
Is Obama sowing the seeds to allow a future tyrannt to stop the people fighting back?
Quoting Ellen Grace Jones again ""The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that ALL conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." So said that nice little fellow, Adolf Hitler.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bbgood
yawn!
10:55 on 21/12/2012
Stupid essay that would be too embarrassing even for an 'F' grade A'level student. UK has 0.25 firearm related deaths per 100, 000 people per year and US has 10.2 firearm related deaths per 100.000 people per year and guess which country has stricter firearms legislation? Its easy for Ellen Grace Jones to write a nonsensical essay whilst she is safe in the UK.