In light of the recent tragedy which befell North Illinois University, it seems the proper time to reexamine one of our own student’s recent comments on gun control. Based on Ben Sauer’s assertion regarding the events at Virginia Tech, this might only further his opposition to gun control. However, we feel differently and would like to address the flaws of Sauer’s argument.

To begin, we would like to use Sauer’s own words: “If guns can’t be banned, then restrict them. Ban concealed weapons, require background checks, demand waiting periods.” Yes, we agree. The problem is Sauer’s statement was not sincere, but one full of sarcasm and misappropriated irony. We do not posit that all guns should be banned, but that, as Sauer so eloquently stated, the process for obtaining firearms be much more regulated and judicious.

Sauer went on to state, “Has anyone noticed the critical flaw in gun control thought? When did criminals start obeying the law?” Exactly! Criminals don’t obey the law, so why should we make it easier for them to obtain firearms. On top of that, and even more importantly, if high-powered, automatic weapons are on the market, they are not only easier to purchase, but easier to steal. As Sauer said, criminals don’t obey the law. The best way to prevent criminal hands from finding the triggers of these weapons is to make sure they are off the market and out of the reach of these delinquents.

Sauer’s next major assertion read as such: “The overwhelming majority of people who commit violent offenses have a record of previous violent criminal behavior.” Yes, which is why there should be legislation preventing their purchase and any illegal access to these firearms. He continued, “A causal relationship between legal gun ownership and homicidal behavior doesn’t exist.” We agree; however, even casual gun owners can make mistakes and accidents can happen. This is why legislation requiring training and safety courses should be required before even casual gun owners can purchase firearms.

Sauer’s invocation of John Lott in support of his argument, while probably representative of typical gun rights activists, should be taken with a grain of salt. Lott’s research methods and findings can hardly be construed as academic. His book “More Guns, Less Crime” reaped results that have yet to be replicated by other academic studies, according to Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s book “Freakonomics.” The duo’s book goes on to say that some of his studies have not been peer-reviewed, a crucial component of all academic research. Furthermore, studies that have produced opposing results have even been blocked from publication.

Again, Sauer states the obvious, but fails to see its implications when he states that “Criminals that obtain guns illegally cause crime.” We think this statement is generally common and accepted knowledge. However, we will counter with two points. First of all, our position, which is that the control and regulation of gun ownership, as defined and promulgated through legislation, would keep these dangerous weapons not only out of criminals’ hands, but out of their reach entirely. There would be no means to accrue such weapons, whether legal or illegal.

Secondly, this statement does not consider the possibility that criminals can obtain guns legally. It is true that criminals are more likely than a “casual gun owner” to obtain guns illegally, but thanks to current gun control policies, criminals can bypass this extra crime by obtaining guns legally, due to the lack of, to put it in Sauer’s words, “background checks” and “waiting periods.”

Northern Illinois was a terrible tragedy. We are not trying to detract from the severity of the event, but it could have ended up much worse had the killer had automatic weapons instead of a shotguns, rifles and pistols. We are not arguing that guns be banned entirely; rather, our concerns are with the accessibility of high-powered weapons, the lack of restrictions pertaining to firearms purchase and the concealment of handguns in urban areas. We assert that if reforms were made in these areas, violent crime would drop dramatically. We would be able to maintain our constitutional right to bear arms, but would be able to avoid degenerating into the society of vigilantism and paranoia that accompanies Sauer’s position.

We welcome any further arguments Sauer would like to shoot our way.

      -The hopeful Junto

Return to Home -- Return to News