A Modest Proposal For Protecting American Citizens from Gun Violence and Mass Shootings, and for Helping Stimulate the U.S. Economy

One would be hard pressed not to associate the great nation of the United States with gun violence and mass shootings. For decades, the American public has witnessed countless acts of terrible murder, in almost all cases involving some high-powered semi-automatic rifle and a mentally unbalanced individual. Parents across the nation fear for the safety of their children, whether these young girls and boys are headed to school, the cinemas, or even a simple weekend visit to the mall. The outrage and despair that comes about following such shootings seems to have reached a fever pitch, so much so that whosoever could find a solution and end the violence would undoubtedly be declared a national hero.
Having immersed myself thoroughly in finding such an answer, I have come to make several important observations. The term “mass murder,” coined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as meaning an incident in which four or more people are killed, does not accurately reflect the number of mass shootings. Since 2006, the FBI reports a total of 186 mass killings as per the bureaus definition. If one were to examine the number of mass shootings, defined as an incident in which four or more people are shot in a spree, regardless as to whether these victims died or were wounded, the numbers become staggering. During the same period, the mass shootings toll exceeds 900. Under this same definition, the citizens of this great country has witnessed and been a victim of over 250 incidents in 2013 alone. No man, woman, or child should have to bear the pain of being involved in any such incident.
As of 2012, the population of the United States is calculated to be 313.9 million people. Of this 313.9 million, my calculations indicate that the total population over the age of 18 is 76.5%, a number of 244.7 million souls. Moreover, according to federal figures, there were 310 million nonmilitary firearms in the United States as of 2009. As these figures point out, this is enough to issue every single citizen with at least one firearm. Currently, according to a Gallup poll from 2011, the percentage of the population owning a gun is 36%, or 115.2 million. With this figure in mind, the number of individuals, over the age of 18, who do not possess a gun is roughly 156.6 million people.
A reliable member of the National Rifle Association has informed me, that with the proper training, almost anyone can properly use and care for a handgun. Although the number of shooting ranges in the United States is not formally tracked, estimates place the figure around 50,000. The ample training facilities across the country and the abundance of available firearms make for a winning combination. In other words, it is definitively within the realm of possibilities that within a period of three months, the 156.6 million citizens who do not own a firearm could be trained to operate and care for one.
I should now like to offer my solution to all the senseless violence, and given the grave nature of the subject, I would hope no reasonable person could object.
I have been referred by a colleague of mine in Texas to an expert on gun control, living in Montana, that the most effective means of eliminating mass shootings is to arm every citizen of age to carry an unconcealed weapon. Whether this weapon is automatic or semi-automatic is irrelevant, although the caliber of the firearm must be of a lethal size.
Therefore, I offer to the people and politicians of the United States, that the 156.6 million Americans who do not own a firearm should immediately and without restriction have at least one provided. As the second amendment guarantees every citizen the right to bear arms, there is no additional legislation required to bring this solution to fruition. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the United States already has an abundance of firearms ready for distribution, more than enough to provide for the 156.6 million.
One of the most cited reasons as to why mass shootings occur is the fact that none of the victims are able to properly defend themselves. In fact, I do not deem it unreasonable to state that almost every mass shooting in the past decade could have been avoided, not including of course the death or injury of the original aggressors. Some politicians have argued, for the safety of our schools, that every teacher be required to carry a weapon. I humbly suggest that this proposal is not sufficient, for Americans need to be safe in not just schools, but every public space. Moreover, students would not be able to prevent an attack following the psychotic break of their instructors.
I would further stipulate that these safety devices distributed be only American made, for not only are these weapons the most reliable, but this proposal seeks to benefit the United States in an economic realm. I have calculated that a safe and reliable handgun, such as one sold by Smith & Wesson, will cost approximately $75 dollars. With plenty of ammunition readily available and of little cost sold by Wal-Mart, another American company, this proposal would not burden the taxpayers. Compared with the cost of lawsuits, funeral services, metal detectors, etc. being calculated to cost well in excess of $2.2 billion dollars, providing citizens with protection is clearly more economic. Additionally, with the rise in gun ownership, Americans will undoubtedly be interested in providing further protection for their respective families. American gun and ammunition manufacturers will see a sharp increase in demand, and subsequently countless jobs will be added to our economy, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 3%. Although initial instruction will be covered by the federal government, new gun owners will continue to visit American gun ranges. Some consider a trip to these ranges the new bowling.
A true patriot, CEO of the NRA, and good friend of mine, Wayne LaPierre was wise to point out some additional benefits to this proposal. While carrying an unconcealed weapon certainly will work as a responsive measure to aggressors, these guns also work as a preventative means for safety. LaPierre and I believe most of the unhinged individuals responsible for these heinous crimes would certainly think twice when faced with, say, a theatre full of gun toting Americans. Despite the fact that many of these people wish to die themselves, the thought of only being able to murder one person before being shot would deter any efforts to carry out their plans.
I can only think of one logical objection to this proposal, that foreigners and visitors to our country will be unarmed and thus unable to defend themselves. Unfortunately, these individuals will not carry guns, but let me point out that the sheer number of armed Americans is sufficient to protect these visitors. Therefore, let no other man attempt to dissuade the public with other proposals: of requiring extensive background checks for every citizen wishing to purchase a gun, of providing readily accessible mental health services for those who require it, of banning the purchase of extended magazines and automatic rifles that could not possibly be needed for hunting, of banning firearms for the general public altogether, of following the British lead and not require every police officer to carry a weapon, of removing the stand-your-ground laws, of removing loopholes that allow individuals to buy weapons at gun shows without background checks, of banning armor-piercing ammunition, or create serious punishments for gun trafficking.
That said, I am not opposed to listening to and evaluating any serious proposal offered by rational Americans that would be as effective and economically beneficial as my own solution. Moreover, I would ask any congressmen who disagree with my proposal to reflect on whether it were their children who were the victims of a school shooting, and ask whether or not they would have liked another student to have prevented a tragedy by carrying a gun.
In conclusion, I would like to adamantly state that I have absolutely no personal stake in any U.S. or U.S. subsidiary of any gun or ammunitions manufacturers, and am already an owner of a fully automatic M-16 rifle. Not only would I not benefit in any monetary sense, I would also not qualify for the gun handout program or training as I do not currently reside in the United States.