Pros And Cons Of Justin Cronin

In “Confessions of a Liberal Gun Owner”, Justin Cronin identifies himself and his political beliefs as “devoutly liberal” (203). However, Cronin’s ideals transcend political affiliation when it comes to the issue of gun ownership. Among the reasons Cronin gives for his pro-gun stance – generally reserved for conservatives - is “the seductive psychological power” (204) of a gun as well as the safety and welfare of his family. It is those desires – rooted deep in Cronin’s psyche – that drive an otherwise steadfast liberal to support the basis of a conservative agenda.

Violence and gun control laws are strongly correlated for both political parties, but inversely so. Whereas Democrats believe lessening crime requires stricter gun control laws, Republicans believe lessening crime requires less strict gun control laws. However, as Cronin has shown, the need to identify with a political party should not distort facts about gun control, nor be the sole reason for an opinion in favor of, or in opposition to gun ownership.

Recent statistics show that gun possession, when permitted legally, can have a positive impact on crime rates.

In Chicago, mere months after granting concealed carry weapon permits, “homicide rates improved to a 56 year low” (Istook). Placing the power of protection into the hands of responsible citizens has taken power away from criminals. The right to own a weapon, within legal statutes, is not only a right granted by the second amendment, but also a deterrent to crime, and is legislation that liberals and conservatives alike can support. However, Party lines and media sensationalism have separated public opinion on gun control issues, and made a sensible solution to escalating crime -allowing concealed carry weapon permits – difficult to

achieve.
Supporting legislation that leads to a reduced crime rate is something that everyone should be able to get behind. But yet, recent legislation shows that the separation of votes on gun control issues is very closely related to party affiliation. Senate Bill 97, an increased background check bill, went to vote and was rejected by a score of 54-46 in favor of the background checks – 60 votes were necessary for the bill to pass. Of the 54 in favor of passing the bill, 48 were Democrats; of the 46 opposing, 41 were Republican (Silver). Another factor impacting voting on the Senate level is a politician’s desire for reelection. Voting against political lines on important public safety issues can weaken chances of reelection greatly. Defeating gun control restrictions is becoming increasingly difficult as the guns used by criminals are killing more and more people each and every day. The solution most Democrats support, stricter gun control, however seemingly logical it appears, is not without faults.
Restricting gun ownership will undoubtedly deter criminals from acquiring weapons in a legal manner. However, there is a multitude of channels and avenues with which purchasing a gun is viable; for instance, Cronin states that he “once bought one in a parking lot”. (204) Trying to remove guns from the street entirely is an exercise in futility – only feasible in an idealistic utopian society. Because this is clearly an idea with very little hope for success, we must use the facts and knowledge we have gained to find a rational solution among the many options. Just as finding a rational solution is a tough task, so too is sifting through the information available to find pertinent and truthful facts on the issue.
Gun control has long been a widely debated and scrutinized issue; the advent and emergence of social media have intensified and sensationalized both sides of the argument in all forms of reporting. Misinformation spreads like wildfire; people are quick to trust anything that they read on the Internet or hear from their news station. News outlets reporting on multiple innocent bystander casualties appeal to our emotions (and to their ratings), and can cloud rational judgment and opinion. Fear is a very strong motivator and also an influence on our decision making process. With each incident and as casualty counts rise, fear festers inside of us. Fear of our loved ones or our self getting hurt; fear of our community being torn to shambles by violence and the subsequent possibility of rioting. In Cronin’s case, the manifestation of fear leads to him acquiring weapons to protect his family.
A weapon in the hands of the wrong person is a situation that can strike fear in all citizens. But a weapon in the hands of the right person can help to quell violence, and give peace of mind in the case of extreme emergencies. Cases for both sides are evident. Those opposed to citizens owning guns point to instances such as school shootings, and the recent church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina when they justify the need for stricter gun control. Those for gun ownership point to situations in which an armed citizen was able to either take down a potentially dangerous and threatening criminal, or lessen the casualties from an attack with a gun, or multiple guns. However, sensationalizing and reporting on instances of mass harm makes for better news and better ratings for news outlets and social media. Even seemingly trustworthy scientific studies may be the product of bias or inadequate sample sizes.
The number of crimes deterred by law abiding, concealed weapon carrying citizens far outweigh the number of homicides committed with weapons acquired by legal means. The real challenge in reducing crime is reducing the amount of weapons in the hands of citizens by illegal means. The only way to accomplish that is to unite both political parties for one cause and to increase the punishment given to those who obtain weapons illegally.