Introduction
In his essay “Our Blind Spot About Guns,” Nicholas Kristof raises the issue of legal regulation of the carrying and use of firearms. He compares it to the development of car safety. The appearance of cars on the roads in American history did not immediately culminate in creating traffic rules, safety technologies, and prohibitions. Driving licenses were introduced only in 1920, and after that, legislation and citizens gradually came to reduce deaths from car accidents (Kristof, 163). Similar measures were carried out concerning firearms, which in humans were actively regulated by law until 1968 (Kristof, 164). After that, in comparison with cars, according to the author, the activity ceased. In total, about 30,000 people a year die from road accidents and firearms in America (Kristof, 162). From Kristof’s point of view, guns also need to go a long way towards increasing general security measures. The rules for issuing, carrying, and using require more detailed, elaborated interventions from the state and society as a whole.
Response
In my opinion, the carrying and use of firearms are not regulated to the extent that it is possible given the development of technology in modern times. This fact is explained not only by statistics on mortality but also by the public resonance after the cases of shootings in American schools, illegal abuse of power by police officers, and much more. People live with the constant fear of other people, admitting the possibility of using weapons, despite the subsequent punishment. Fear is the cause of depression and other psychological disorders that affect all activities people do, including those related to their work or interactions with society. Ultimately, these reasons translate into global social and economic problems throughout the country, which require government intervention.
From my point of view, Nicholas Kristof is correct that the law on carrying and issuing weapons requires additional security measures listed by the author, such as a detailed study of the biography of a person who wants to buy a gun and the use of technology to trigger (Kristof, 164). However, a comparison with the history of cars in America, in my opinion, does not fully reveal the essence of the indicated problem. Transport has always been an indicator of the development of civilization technologies and contributed to trade and an increase in the quality of life of people. The original purpose of the transport did not carry any clear danger to human life. The central thesis of this work is that firearms are by their nature a much more dangerous invention of humanity, the use of which endangers life, and this was its original purpose, what cannot be said about cars.
Greater Threats
Firearms were created for use in military affairs and only then became widespread in hunting for animals. However, in peacetime, the use of weapons should be minimal, only in specially designated places with all security measures, or during a hunt, without crossing the line of poaching. In this regard, the regulation of the carrying and sale of firearms should be much more elaborate and severe since the vast majority of people on the planet do not need them. If a person buys a weapon for self-defense, then this is a deliberately unfair situation in which it is necessary to eliminate the root cause and not its consequences. its consequences.
Conclusion
Throughout its history, transport has experienced many measures to increase safety, as people died under the hooves of horses, and in sea transport, and cars. However, for many Americans, the automobile is a necessary part of everyday life, in its original purpose not threatening human life. Cars are designed to transport people from point A to point B, not win a war and kill animals. The example of Kristof is entirely indicative, but the criteria for the problem of the presence of firearms in people’s lives are much more multifaceted and require additional and fair research.
Work Cited
Kristof, Nicholas. “Our Blind Spot About Guns.” The New York Times, 2014, pp. 162-165.