Should the United States look north for a solution to its firearm problem? Despite having one of the highest rates of gun ownerships, Canada actually has the lowest crime rate in the world. Well, a uniform federal firearms control system seems far more important than the number of gun ownership. In order to reduce the availability of guns, strict regulations should be addressed. Any occupant who conditionally needs a gun should acquire a certificate from both the police and doctors. Personal and medical details of gun owner should be honestly provided. According to the gun control system established in Canada, Canadians who wish to purchase a gun must acquire a Firearm Acquisition Certificate from the police. In order to obtain a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, am applicant must provide identification and background information, including addresses for the past five years. Unlike some American states, applicants are not acquired to supply medical information to the police.
Apart from applying for gun certificates, the restriction of uses of certain guns should be regulated so as to ensure no collateral effect. For example, the Canadian FAC system includes control of restricted weapons and prohibited weapons. Restricted weapons must be stored only in one’s home or place of business depending on terms of the registration certificate. Prohibited weapons, such as shotguns, sawed-off rifles and silencers are absolutely illegal in Canada. In ‘Bowling for columbine’, an American high school girl owned a semi-auto machines gun which could shoot about a hundred bullets in a minute! That’s ridiculous! In addition, a gun hire system, similar to DVD hire shops, can be further developed for preventing gun abuses and stealing. Limited bullets will be allowed to purchase under each I.D. No one actually owns a gun if such a system puts into place. ‘In killing with Gun in the U.S.A and Canada 1977-1983: further evidence for the effectiveness of Control, arguments regarding the effectiveness of the Canadian law was essentially as follows: a) Canada has strict gun control; b) The United State has lenient gun controls; c) The United State has more per capita handgun deaths than Canada; d) hence, the Canadian gun control law reduces handgun violence.’ In such a case, it seems lenient gun control create a violent society.
On the other hand, some gun owners may argue that stricter gun laws are unfair to the vast majority of owners who use their guns responsibility. Nevertheless, it is more important to ensure there is no collateral effect from any gun owners. Additionally, if the applicants apply for a gun legally, it is not that hard. Others may say tough gun laws are no the solution as they can be circumvented. While strict gun laws are aimed to narrow the pool of illegal guns and reduce the availability of guns. One may be able to evade the law system, however not all illegal applicants can! Some politicians strongly support bans on gun uses will solve the firearm problems more effectively. Significantly, bans on guns will indeed raise the demand for illegal guns underground, which makes it harder for police to control gun uses. i.e. a FAC gun control system in Canada works very effectively due to the fact that fewer guns are traded in black market.
‘Useless laws weaken necessary laws.’
--- Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1775)
Importantly, gun ownership doesn’t create a violent society, but lenient gun control does. Nevertheless, bans do not make something disappear, rather harder to control! Therefore a strict, uniform federal gun control system is far more essential so as to ensure no collateral effects of any gun uses!
Done by:
Calvin Huang
11 T
