Hakeem Jefferson penned his opinion Monday that stricter gun laws are necessary to reduce acts of violence similar to those in Arizona.
While I appreciate his opinion and agree with the notion that we need to restrict the damage that men like Jared Loughner do with the weapons they possess, prohibition simply isn’t the answer.
Banning or otherwise restricting firearms to the public is not the solution. In the age of information, someone’s health, employment and other personal information are a click away. Currently, many states have gun laws that take a patient’s mental history into consideration in a firearms application. Policy makers need to use this and establish criteria to judge if someone is in a clear mental state rather than simply restrict access to firearms.
Naturally, there was some record of Loughner’s instability, and establishing a database to handle this information could potentially save a few lives, as currently there isn’t a transparent method to assess mental aptitude in firearm applications.
For those who are judged able to carry a firearm, I believe in almost unlimited access and display of their guns. Criminals will possess weapons regardless of legal status, and they will continue to carry out acts similar to the one in Arizona. In those situations, the bystanders who hid — and some who were injured — would have had the opportunity to incapacitate the shooter instead of succumb to his will.
A qualified public should have the opportunity to defend itself when authorities are not present.
More Like This
Column: Failures of executive action on gun control
By Ross Abbott | Jan. 11, 2016Column: A defense of arms
By Ross Abbott | Oct. 21, 2015