“You’re from Chicago?” they repeat what I told them back to me.

“Yeah.”

“Oooh,” they say, usually followed by a specific look or a question like “everyone there has guns, right?”

No, they don’t.  It’s been two years since we’ve gone a day without a shooting, but, contrary to popular belief, not everyone has guns.  In fact, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States.  The city is also one that is very active in the controversies over gun control.  The debate over stricter gun laws in the United States include the questions if gun control would work, the legality of the guns used, and what policies other countries with lower gun violence have. 

Perhaps the most pertinent question is: would gun control actually work?  Using Chicago as an example, it does not seem like it does.  The majority of the guns in the city are transported from Indiana, which is illegal without going through proper processes; however, these laws are difficult to enforce.  But perhaps the problem is gang activity rather than guns.  The United States have 9.8 gangs per 100,000 people, with the closest second being the entire United Kingdom with 2.72 gangs per 100,000 people (The Great Gun Debate, 14:36).  Gun violence in Chicago comes in the greatest amount from gangs and people who acquire guns illegally, so the more conservative argument asks why the government would make it more difficult to get weapons for the people who hold them legally if they are only a small percentage of problem.  Moving away from Chicago, it is inconsistent whether there are higher homicide rates where gun control laws are laxer.  Arizona, Kansas, Vermont, Maine, Idaho, and New Hampshire all have the right to concealed carry without a permit, yet their mass shooting and gun homicide rates or exponentially lower than Chicago and California, which both have stricter gun laws (The Great Gun Debate, 19:42).  A common statement from groups that oppose stricter gun laws refers to this discrepancy with “criminals don’t obey laws.”

            Legality is another point of contention.  According to the 2016 report by the Bureau of Justice and Statistics, 90% of guns used in crimes are not purchased in retail stores; however, only approximately 43% of them are illegally obtained off the black market.  The other 57% were obtained by criminals through means such as family members or thievery, and so the counterargument is that stricter gun control would reduce the amount of legally purchased firearms that are circulating to begin with, lowering the amount that fall into the hands of people who use them violently.  “In some states where they have expanded “right to carry laws,” there has been an increase in violence by around 12 to 15%” (The Great Gun Debate, 15:50); these states are the contrast to those mentioned earlier, in which the violence decreased with similar laws.  Some people, then, think that rehabilitation in prisons and detention facilities will be more helpful than stricter gun laws that may or may not be effective.  If prisons focused on mental rehabilitation for criminals, they would not go out and commit a similar crime. 

            Other places like Japan, Iceland, and the English city of London exemplify other case studies for gun control.  Japan has such extensive gun laws that it is almost impossible for the average citizen to own a gun; it includes a day class, a written exam, a shooting range test with a passing score of at least 95%, mental health and drug tests, and background checks.  After that, the only guns they are allowed to own are shotguns and air rifles.  Japan has an exponentially lower violent crime rate than the United States; however, this could also be attributed to an intense culture of shame and an extraordinarily high conviction rate.  Yet, even their police do not rely on guns—instead, they place greater emphasis on martial arts and kendo (Low).  On the other hand, Iceland is a country where every 1 in 3 people own a gun; they also have particularly low levels of gun-related violence.  The people use them to hunt and compete, but there are also strict control laws in place.  For example, there are mental and physical tests, you must have a meeting with the chief of police to explain why you want a gun, a background check, a lecture with a written exam that has a 75% passing grade, and a day-long practice session.  To obtain a small rifle or a pump-action shotgun, it takes about a year; “owning a handgun…can take around three to four years, and semi-automatic rifles are all but banned” (Smith, Banic).  Icelandic lawyer Ívar Pálsson, says that allowing military grade weapons like the AR-15—a controversial, military-grade weapon in the US—is irresponsible and “crazy, absolutely crazy.”  People in America, though, argue that the AR-15 accounts for a very low amount of gun deaths in the US.

            Both Japan and Iceland have strict gun laws and low gun crime, even though one is a gun-hating country and one is gun-loving.  London, however, is a city in which guns were banned, and now they are experiencing an exponential growth in knife attacks.  More common phrases in the gun debate is “guns kill people” or “people kill people.”  So, does banning guns reduce the rate of crime?  It does not appear so, but it does seem to reduce the amount of people killed.  People who commit violent actions will still be violent even without guns, but a gun is extremely efficient in murder, while a knife or other weapons can only harm one person at a time.  It is more difficult to fatally wound someone with a knife than a gun. 

            The debate over stricter gun laws in the United States include the questions if gun control would work, the legality of the guns used, and what policies other countries with lower gun violence have.  The controversy is very cyclical: do strict laws work? It depends on the place.  Are these guns purchased legally?  Yes, but then they are distributed illegally.  So then would it decrease the number of guns in circulation if laws were more intense for the people who are purchasing them legally?  This goes back to if the laws are effective.  There are countries in which they do, so perhaps America should adopt a system like theirs.  With Japan and Iceland, it seems that either everyone should have a gun or no one should.  The only person who can stop a someone with a gun is someone else with a gun, but if no one has a gun, then no one needs one. It is the unbalance that creates danger. In either case, American needs to make a decision for the safety of future generations.

Works Cited

Low, Harry. “How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime.” BBC News, BBC, 6 Jan.
     2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.

Smith, Alexander, and Vladimir Banic. “Iceland is a gun-loving country with no
     shooting murders since 2007.” NBC News, NBC Universal, 28 May 2018,
     www.nbcnews.com/news/world/
     iceland-gun-loving-country-no-shooting-murders-2007-n872726. Accessed 10
     Apr. 2019.

“The Great Gun Debate: Destiny vs. Vicent James! Gun Control, 2nd Amendment &
    Mass Shootings! (#119).” Youtube, uploaded by The Fallen State, 15 March 2019,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxKQCXIwca0.