top of page

Gun Control


   Proponents for gun control want to prevent the proliferation of firearms while supporters of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) want the freedom to defend themselves. Both sides have valid points so let's analyze the subject in a straightforward and logical manner with the various perspectives being considered.

   The discussion on gun control should include the following: a firearm's stopping power, the number of adversaries to defend against, and the distance of a typical confrontation.

   For a firearm's stopping power, in nearly every situation a .38 caliber is adequate enough to put down an assailant. Using higher caliber ammunition may become overkill since it poses a risk to the surrounding area (e.g., may go through residential walls). Since higher calibers are not truly necessary for self-defense, anything greater than a .38 caliber should become illegal. Exceptions will be allowed if there is an actual need for such as with a park ranger requiring a .50 caliber against bear attacks.

   The second to consider is the number of adversaries to protect against. On average, crimes are typically committed with less than six adversaries in a confrontation. Because of this, it is unnecessary for firearms to provide an excessive number of rounds (extended clips) since the additional firepower isn't needed for self-defense. A greater factor in adequately resolving an encounter is with proficiency in the firearm rather than the number of rounds that may be available.

   To ensure compliancy, only revolver-style weapons should be permitted to the public rather than semi-automatic that uses magazines and are clip-loaded (may be modified). Only law enforcement personnel will be allowed to carry other types of firearms than a six-round revolver.

   The third criteria that should be considered with gun control is the distance that is necessary to protect oneself. On average, crimes typically occur within a ten-meter (30 feet) distance. Since this is within range of a pistol, long firearms like military-style assault rifles should be banned since they are unnecessary for self-defense at that distance.

   Some would say that adapting the above changes would result in a restrictive gun control policy, but based on the above considerations, a person only really needs a six-round .38 caliber revolver for self-defense. Anything else would be overkill and places others at risk. Again, training and proficiency in the use of the firearm is a greater factor in protecting oneself than the actual firearm itself.

   For hunting purposes, high-powered rifles should be reevaluated in order to prevent their possible use in criminal activities. Since hunting typically requires only a single round to bring down game (two for birds), all hunting rifles should be restricted to being of the breech-loaded, single-shot variety (double-barrel shotguns for birds). Bolt-action, pump-action, and semi-automatic versions of firearms should be illegal since they pose a risk to the public.

   After considering these points, advocates for gun control should be satisfied with the proposed changes since the type of firearm will be restricted for public safety, while gun enthusiasts should be satisfied in that they will be able to use a firearm that is capable of adequately defending themselves (or hunt game).
bottom of page