Out Blind Spot About Guns: From Kristof’s Comparison to Personalized Firearms

Introduction

Access to guns and their possession have become a disputable issue in the US. Throughout the history of the state, the right to self-defense has been fundamental for all citizens. For this reason, firearms became a part of local culture and people’s mentality. However, nowadays, there are numerous claims that the attitude toward its use should be reconsidered, and laws should be introduced prohibiting its free use.

The public discussion was triggered by a wave of crimes committed with guns, including those committed by young people. Thus, the article “Our blind spot about guns” by Nicholas Kristof delves into the same issue. It shows that more effective gun control is key to resolving the problem and avoiding new violent cases in the future.

Kristof’s Comparison: Guns and Cars

The selected article presents the problem of guns from an unusual angle. The author compares owning and using a firearm with owning and using a car (Kristof, 2014). He outlines the fact that in 1921, the auto fatality rate was critical, and many people died in car accidents. However, instead of prohibiting cars, the government introduced severe methods to regulate traffic and ensure drivers possess the skills and knowledge to minimize risks (Kristof, 2014).

The situation with guns that is observed nowadays is the same. Individuals might kill others using firearms, meaning that the government’s central task is to ensure there is reasonable and effective gun control that would help to stabilize the situation (Kristof, 2014). It would help to avoid dramatic outcomes and resolve public debates. In such a way, the main author’s goal is to show that prohibiting guns is not an effective way to address the problem.

First, it will not guarantee that individuals will stop using them and that the number of crimes will reduce. Second, Kristof emphasizes that the idea of traffic control was considered impossible at first; however, courts accepted the necessity of driver’s licenses to guarantee safety on roads (Kristof, 2014). For this reason, the task that seems unresolvable at the moment might be successfully managed in the future if adequate measures are taken to control the problem and make smaller steps toward greater success.

Analyzing the paper, it is possible to admit the effectiveness of the author’s writing strategy and arguments. First, he offers numbers to show that cars are potentially more dangerous than guns, as they can cause numerous accidents and deaths (Kristof, 2014). Second, he moves back into history, showing how the problem of car accidents was resolved.

It required much effort, additional regulation, laws, and tools such as driving licenses; however, as a result, a radical reduction in the number of crashes was attained (Kristof, 2014). Kristof shows that the same approach is applicable to the problem of guns and their control. The number of deaths can be reduced only if practical measures are used.

Thus, using strong and persuading arguments, Kristof proves his position. It is possible to agree with the necessity of introducing more robust regulatory measures instead of the complete prohibition of guns. First, the provided examples show that it is possible to attain success in addressing complex issues that imply people’s safety.

Second, access to guns has always been part of the nation’s culture, and its complete prohibition might trigger a strong public response. It might also lead to worsening the situation instead of improving it. For this reason, more effective and practical gun control is viewed as a better solution.

The Case for Personalized Firearms

Personalized guns can be one of the possible solutions to the discussed problems. For instance, it helps to reduce the number of gun-related cases involving adolescents and children. Young people are often prone to impulsive behavior, meaning that they might use firearms under the impact of strong emotions (Teret et al., 1998). Moreover, they often have suicidal thoughts, which might also result in using guns (Teret et al., 1998).

Thus, a weapon that only an authorized user can operate is a possible solution to the problem (Teret et al., 1998). Using advanced technologies, such as touch memory or radio frequency technology, it is possible to ensure that the gun will not shoot if the wrong person uses it (Teret et al., 1998). This will lead to a significant reduction in the number of new cases of gunfire in the state.

That is why using personalized guns can be an effective way to improve firearms regulation. However, individuals who doubt the possibility of equipping all weapons with the required technology and its effectiveness might oppose the idea. First, reconsidering the existing approach to distributing and controlling guns might require additional investment.

Second, personalized guns will require creating a list of authorized users and their control, which might also be a complex task regarding the high number of unreported or illegal guns stored by the population. Finally, there is an objection that the technology has not yet been developed sufficiently (Teret et al., 1998). It means that the integration of this approach will require much time and serious changes in the existing framework used to regulate the problem and control access to firearms in the state.

Rebuttal

Although the arguments mentioned above might seem logical, they can be refuted by using relevant facts. First, the proposed measure might require much time; however, following Kristof’s example with cars, it is the only possible way to resolve the problem. Effective methods to reduce car accidents emerged after a long period of adaptation and evolution. The idea applies to gun control as creating the list of authorized guns, creating the necessary technology, and establishing effective legislation might be time-consuming and require much effort and investment.

However, it is more important, as it will help to develop the basis for future successes in the given sphere and significantly reduce the number of gunshots or accidents of this sort. For this reason, regardless of the existing arguments against it, a personalized weapon can be a potent measure to address the problem at the moment.

Conclusion

Overall, access to guns and the right to own and use them remain disputable issues. Although there are numerous claims to introduce complete prohibition, Kristof, in his article, argues this point of view. He says that cars used to be lethal when they emerged; however, wise and effective measures helped to address the problem. The same idea applies to firearms and their regulation.

For instance, by using personalized weapons, it is possible to reduce the number of gunshots, especially among young people. For this reason, the resolution of the problem requires time and effort to create a new framework and guarantee that it effectively addresses the issue. However, it would be more effective compared to the complete prohibition, as guns are integral parts of the nation’s culture and are part of their right to self-defense.

References

Kristof, N. (2014). Our blind spot about guns. The New York Times. Web.

Teret, S. P., DeFrancesco, S., Hargarten, S. W., & Robinson, K. D. (1998). Making guns safer. Issues in Science and Technology, 14(4). Web.