Las Vegas. A 64 year old Stephen Paddock took aim and opened a staccato crackle of gunfire at concert goers. Blood and mass hysteria ensued. At least 58 people perished on the Vegas Strip and more than 500 were injured. In the history of all shootings, this was a tragedy of cataclysmic scales : the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history was what had transpired.

AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE

Palpably, the US has a problem, or rather, a devastating conundrum, with guns and gun related violence : 88 guns for every 100 people ( leading in gun ownership ) ; mass shootings more than 11 times as often as any other developed country; 1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days. America is a land founded on freedom ( and guns ), but one cannot deny that the succession of shootings upon shootings have caused a deep seated divide on the issue of gun control. The left believes that gun control is necessary because sufficient lives have been lost to the long standing gun related violence. The right asserts that gun ownership is a fundamental God given right, used to protect themselves and their families against anyone who would induce harm upon them, or as a last resort protection against a fascist state. As a result of the deeply charged nature of this issue, one must recognise that it is of immense difficulty to even come to a civilised discourse on this issue, much less a solution. Anyone who ever attempts to try only find themselves chagrined as they inevitably hit a roadblock down the journey of compromise. There is seemingly no compromise when it comes to the issue of guns.

BACK TO SINGAPORE

Singapore. Safe ( Read: Singapore ranked second-safest country in study ). Secure. One could safely assume that if guns were in the equation, safety would not be a Singapore hallmark. Gun ownership statistics show that out of every 100 people in Singapore, only 0.5 would own a firearm. Now, how then did we achieve such low ownership numbers?

First of all, Singapore has one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world — anyone caught using an illegal firearm faces the death penalty. Illegal possession of a gun or ammunition can lead to jail time of between 5 and 10 years and at least six strokes of the cane.

Culturally, guns have been a non sine qua non. Before the Arms Offences Act was enacted in 1973, guns were never a plaything of Singaporeans. Unlike how deeply woven guns are in the tapestry of American history, guns were never viewed as a household essential here in Singapore. Hence, when the act was instituted, it was easily enforced.

Another vital reason would be the utmost control of our nation’s borders. Grace Lin, a Singaporean, wrote to the ST forums that her dad was stopped from bringing flower fertiliser from Malaysia into Singapore for fear of it being used as bomb materials. The Customs authorities confiscated his fertiliser, and even took down his personal details. Being a small country as well as having an elaborate system of enforcement indubitably helps with this task of border security.

Basic economics state that a blanket ban legislated would lead to problems regarding a black market ( i.e drugs ). However, with a small country size, a dependable legislature and good enforcement, the problems of a black market can be curtailed, as evident in the case of Singapore.

IN THE CASE OF MURICA

Some people have long advocated for a broad ban of all firearms like what’s been done in Australia during 1996. I have 3 reasons as to why this will not work in the US.

One, there are way too many guns in the US. Australia’s mandatory gun buyback programs saw the collection of roughly 650,000 privately held guns. That was approximately one fifth to a third of guns in Australia. On the other hand, there are 310 million guns in the US. Thus, to do in America what was similar to that done in Australia, approximately 105 million guns would have to be confiscated! Unbelievable. Imagine this: Tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to forcibly take away the guns of millions of Americans. An initiative like this would be an utter failure, and will definitely exacerbate the problems of a black market considering the inability to enforce such a policy, large country size as well as the porous borders of the US.

This leads on to my next point, a broad ban is unconstitutional and is seen as an attack on the American culture to many. Uttering two simple words “ Gun Control” or “ Ban Guns ” would highly likely trigger outrage from gun owners all across the states, with many citing their second amendment rights. Arguing guns are dangerous rarely ( actually never ) works, as opponents of gun control could simply cite how cars, alcohol and even consuming deep fried food would cause more harm than guns ( they are statistically not incorrect you know ). Guns are not simply objects, they represent the culture of a hell lot of people. Many grew up around guns, and never saw guns as a threat to anyone in their community. Instead, they were used for traditional hobbies like hunting. Plenty of pro-gun citizens believe that guns are not the problem, it’s the person behind the trigger that is. One online commentator even said this: “ Stephen Paddock could’ve used a truck to carry out his attack as the terrorists did in France last year killing 80. Guns aren’t the problem! ” and that shit actually makes sense. Confiscating people’s guns would be an act of war against the people, and taking such an action would only inevitably lead to an outburst of rage and probably plenty of violence as well.

Lastly, we move on to question the effectiveness of a blanket ban on guns. Proponents of a gun ban always cite Australia to be a prime example of a successful ban executed through a buyback program ( the government buying back guns ). Yet, the Australian model is widely disputed in it’s effectiveness.

Citing from a National Review article:

“ University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.” “Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.” A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate. The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”

Daily wire Article:

“Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback,” wrote Lott. “It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback.”

“Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts,” Lott continued. “In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn’t follow the change in gun ownership — there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased.”

Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings.

With research stacking up both for and against gun control, the effectiveness of control measures is contentious and questionable. Stronger & overwhelming evidence, as well as a sound model proving causation, would be the smoking gun needed as to determine if these measures do actually work. But right now we are in a zone of ambiguity. The weighing scale is tilted in favour of the freedom to bear arms when you account for the impracticalities of a buyback program, as well as the cultural and constitutional implications of a ban on arms.

OKAY THEN … OTHER POLICIES MAYBE?

Proponents of gun control usually suggest other policies such as banning of assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and more comprehensive background checks.

All these policies are sloppy and inadequate. Let me explain why.

First off, the term “ assault weapon ” does not exist. It’s a made up term. Quoting from NYU School of Law James B. Jacobs’s “ Why Ban “Assault Weapons” : “ So called “assault weapons” are not machine guns or automatic-fire weapons, but are semiautomatics functionally identical to scores of firearms that are not classified as assault weapons. They do not fire more rapidly, do not fire more bullets, and do not fire higher caliber bullets than many other semiautomatic firearms not defined as assault weapons.” Furthermore, assault weapons are not “crime guns.” 90% of guns used in crimes are handguns.

So, let us move to the other proposals suggested by proposals of gun control. For that, let’s talk hypothetical. Say, Stephen Paddock was to conduct his shootings, but with the aforementioned policies successfully implemented.

Background checks? Paddock had no signs of lunacy or criminal records. He would have passed the background checks effortlessly.

Banning silencers? Paddock did not use a silencer. It is argued that if he had used one, the ramifications would have been more malefic. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Silencers only make gunshots sound like a soft puick puick in the movies.

Large magazines and “ assault weapons ” being successfully banned ( assuming it aint impractical like in real life ) ? Weapons used in past massacres came from a diverse background. A determined psychopathic murderer will always find the necessary means to take lives. If they can’t get an AR-15, they get a Glock. Many large magazines for hand guns can then be bought ( and it takes only a few seconds for one to change a magazine ). Another mass massacre ensues.

The only plausible solution from the recent Vegas shooting is to rally for a ban in bump stocks. A bump stock, when added, would allow semi-automatic guns to fire like automatic weapons. It is said that Paddock employed such a modification to his guns. However, even with such a ban legislated, guns can be easily modified via other means. “ It’s not a very difficult thing to do. Almost every semi-automatic weapon can be converted to a fully automatic weapon,” said Joseph Vince, a former special agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “I have seen a firearm converted with a paper clip. ” Besides, this proposal would have little to no effect on the numbers regarding gun violence.

NOW WHAT?

Mass shootings are unfortunate and as such, there is a tendency for us to rush into any surface level solutions that would seemingly solve the problem. Ban guns = no guns = no shootings right? Yet, the solutions that are commonly presented by gun control advocates will never work in alleviating the problem at hand. Besides, the idea of gun control is losing ground: gun control is substantially less popular than it was in the 1990s despite a leftist inundated media overwhelmingly pushing the agenda of the left ( gun control being one of them ).

Thereafter, i would also like to suggest moving the conversation away from gun control. Here’s why.

Research group FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States. They found that the top 3 category of gun deaths ( in decreasing order ) are: Suicides, homicides ( often related to gang loyalties or other street violence ), and domestic violence. Yet, few policy proposals actually target these major classes of gun deaths.

The researchers also looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and according to one of the researchers Leah Libresco: “ the best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.” In short, solutions that were deemed effective must address the social, cultural and mental health problems that communities face.

Overall, it may be said that the gun issue is not simply a gun issue after all.

The problem is complicated and intertwines with many other pertinent societal issues. More discourse as well as research are needed.

To my fellow Singaporeans, I hope that after reading this article, there will be more hesitation in suggesting that what’s employed in Singapore will work in USA. It wouldn’t.

Note: This is my first write up. Please do add comments as to help better my future writings. Thanks! :)