There were 280 million firearms in private hands in America in 2005 and there were only 300,000 gun crimes (Kessler 46). For Kessler, this means that at least 279,700,000 guns did nothing wrong (46). Further, Kessler added that in 89% of the crimes, the person who used the gun was not the one who bought the gun (46). Kessler interpreted the data to mean that the root of America’s crime problem is not the number of guns in the hands of American (46). Kessler’s key argument is that American should not restrict gun rights but should “deepen” instead the sense of gun ownership (47).
In a way, Jim Kessler hit the nail on the head. Indeed, deepening the sense of gun ownership will probably decrease the crime rate. However, this sense of ownership can be deepened not through liberal gun laws but by regulating people’s access to guns. This should not be interpreted as curtailment of rights. In the same way that the right to free speech is moderated by libel laws, the rights to gun ownership will have to be moderated by society’s consideration for the general good. This is because not all persons are ready enough to own guns. Not all individuals are responsible enough to have unhampered access to guns. Responsible gun ownership is promoted best not through liberal gun laws but through gun control.
In 1993, Professor Martin Killias of University of Lausanne, Switzerland, examined the correlations between household gun ownership and rates of homicides and suicides using a gun in eleven European countries, Australia, Canada and the United States (Killias 1721). Killias found that there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and the rates of homicides and suicides using a gun in the fourteen countries (1721). In citing examples, Killias pointed out that the United States homicide was 3.7 times higher than Britain and the US suicide with a handgun was 175 to 1 compared with the US (1722). He