On Wednesday morning, a gunman opened fire on a synagogue in Germany. That synagogue, along with all others in Germany, had police guards for Yom Kippur (a Jewish holiday on Wednesday). This raised the question: was their an expectation of violence? How does Germany control guns? As it turns out, antisemitic feelings have increased in recent years, leading to government action to secure the safety of those going to synagogue for Yom Kippur. And yet, this seems not to be representative of the larger issue of guns in Germany: in fact, it is considered a country with one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the world.
So what causes this low rate of gun violence? It has nothing to do with gun ownership: in fact, it has one of the highest gun ownership rates (yet still far below the US rate). Instead of stopping people from owning guns, Germany requires a lot of checks before issuing a gun license, and a different license must be issued for each type of gun owned. Other rules include needing to be 18 to purchase a gun, needing a separate license to carry a gun, background checks (for criminal records, for drug addictions, mental illnesses, or anything else suspicious), and "specialized knowledge tests" on guns before a license can be issued. Anyone under 25 must undergo additional psychiatric evaluations. Yet the harshest policy is that, to be issued a gun, a person must have a specific and approved use for the weapon. This includes hunters, security workers, and competitive marksmen, but does not include the need for protection. These policies collectively allow guns in Germany to exist only in households with well-trained users with specific needs for guns
When we look at America, we see a lot of senseless violence by those people who have guns for "protection", and we see many hunters in urban areas fighting gun laws because they are (typically) not part of the problem. Perhaps, if we adopted more policies like Germany's, we would be able to limit guns in rural areas such as Chicago without upsetting the South. However, the second amendment is often interpreted as a right for self-protection, so this may be ruled an unconstitutional law.
Yet perhaps the most important German law is that of "specialized knowledge tests". Much as new drivers need to pass a driving test, this requires new gun users to pass a test on gun usage, including safe storage and accurate shooting. While this seems like a simple law, it helps make sure that everyone who bears arms is qualified and able.
And if nothing else, America needs to get rid of its background check loophole: gun shows. It is important to check a person's background, whether it includes violent crimes, patches of drug addictions, or psychiatric episodes. Any of these would put others' lives in danger if they were to relapse and use the gun for harm. While this does not need to bar anyone who has made mistakes in the past, there should be laws in place to make sure that these types of episodes are in the past and the person has moved on.
When we look at other countries, it does not seem so hard to work on making gun law compromises. It is unlikely that guns will every be fully unregulated or fully banned, so we as a country need to instead focus on creating a safe culture around gun ownership.
Sources:
https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/gun-ownership-by-country/
This addresses one of the biggest questions I had from the documentary. How do other countries' gun-control restrictions compare to our own? After doing some research of my own I realized that many of the specifics that you mention pop up in other countries, like Australia and the U.K. in a fairly similar fashion. I think the argument against these widely accepted regulations in the U.S. is based on the misconception that the American system is somehow different.
ReplyDeleteI like how you analyzed and compared other countries to the US to understand how they tackle this problem. I think that the idea of using further background checks as well as psychiatric evaluations would be a good thing, but also face a lot of backlash from rural areas who consider this part of their lives. Nevertheless, I think that the idea where people must have a specific and approved use for the weapon is a good thing. This way the government can know who and why they have their weapon although this may come into problems concerning personal safety and whether that can be used as a valid argument. If it can then almost anyone could argue for protection.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post, as I found the topic very interesting. I agree with your point that stricter background checks and gun training can help decrease gun violence in the United States. Regarding different regional needs, states already each have their own gun laws; however, states are often too large a partition and have too diverse a population to truly address these differences. Another country we can analyze to better understand gun control is China. Private possession of firearms by citizens is prohibited with extremely limited exceptions, with the main one being hunting. While this is extremely authoritarian and can be considered a violation of human rights, there is little to no gun violence in China.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_China
I found this post extremely informative. A lot of anti-gun control arguments I see worry that this will lead to the government taking all guns, or too severely limiting people's ability to own guns (kind of like how abortion is legal in every state, but not really). Here though you show that Germany's policies didn't punish law abiding gun owners, and many citizens are still able to own guns. That makes me wonder, if something like this was implemented in America, would it work? Germany and America have such different cultures/history, but at the same time the effectiveness of Germany's gun laws make me think that we should at least consider adopting some form of what they have.
ReplyDelete