top
North Bay
North Bay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

What Gun-Control Activists Should be Talking About

by Tanner Matthis
Gun-control activists should be pushing for Extreme Risk Protection Orders, not the repeal of the Second Amendment.
While 13,000 people are killed each year by firearms in the United States, there are far more lives saved by guns then there are taken. A 2013 Center for Disease Control study estimates over 500,000 “defensive gun uses by victims” each year in the US. Some people think that it would be beneficial for the US to repeal the Second Amendment, but in reality it would take away law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves. It is ridiculous to suggest outlawing firearms in the US will result in an overall benefit to society.

Most gun control advocates don’t necessarily want to repeal the Second Amendment, but many want to ban semi-automatic rifles. Their reasoning may be to prevent mass shootings, reduce gun violence, or they simply believe nobody needs that type of weapon. To find out if banning rifles would reduce mass shootings, we can look to the 3rd deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, Virginia Tech, in which the shooter used two handguns to kill 33 people. What about reducing gun violence? It is unlikely since around 75% of crimes involving firearms are performed with handguns. Is it true that nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle? Stephen Willeford used his AR-15 in the defense of others when he cut the Sutherland Spring shooter’s rampage short.

So what can we actually do to curb mass shootings? Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) may be the answer. Already on the books in California and a few other states, ERPOs allow law enforcement or immediate family members to petition courts to temporarily prohibit a person from owning firearms if they show signs of being a danger to themself or others. An ERPO would have allowed the police to confiscate the Stoneman Douglas shooter’s firearms beforehand. They not only protect others, but also protect the subject from themself. Connecticut estimates that their ERPO law prevented 72 suicides between 1999 and 2013. The NRA recently announced their support for these types of laws signalling an opportunity for cooperation. Gun-control activists need to stop spouting anti-gun rhetoric and start pushing for national ERPO laws if they want to make a difference.

Further Reading:
The National Academies Press - "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence"
EverytownResearch.org - "Extreme Risk Protection Orders"
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$200.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network