On December 14, 2012, twenty-seven people were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary, a large majority being children no older than the age of eight. Fueled by the desire of reigning terror over their classmates, two high school students, killed thirteen people at Columbine High School. On October 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, fifty-eight people were murdered with close to 500 more being injured. Most recently, On February 14th at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, seventeen students and adults were killed on what they believed would be just any other day at school. This is just a short list of tragedies that all have one thing in common. These senseless acts of violence are all examples of guns being in the hands of the wrong people. However these are not just any type of guns. It can be shown that the guns used are usually semi-automatic and/or are altered with things like bump-stocks to cause even more damage. The guns used in these events, and the majority of the events like them, are much more powerful and much more unnecessary. Which is why, as a society, there needs to be a change. Due to the Second Amendment guns themselves will probably never be banned, nor do they need to be. However, semi-automatic weapons and add-ons that make them semi-automatic or more powerful in general should be illegal. There also needs to be stricter gun laws and better background checks when buying a gun. If we, as a society, want to put an end to these senseless tragedies there are changes that have to be made.
Firstly, the many reasons people still want to have semi- automatic weapons should be examined, with the major argument being people don’t want to give up their guns because they believe it is their Second Amendment right. The United States Constitution writes “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This statement is often used as a point of debate stating that because it is written as an American right that it should not be taken away. However it is important to look at historical context for this argument. This amendment, which is apart of the Bill of Rights, which in 1797, was ratified by Congress. If the historical context is examined, in 1791, the most common and powerful guns available were muskets and flintlock pistols. According to the Washington Post, a "In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, the state-of-the-art firearm was a flintlock musket firing paper cartridges loaded with gunpowder and a lead ball. Given the laborious loading procedures, a skilled soldier could fire at most two or three shots a minute. The smoothbore flintlock lacked both stopping power and accuracy; hence the need for lines of soldiers to fire from point-blank range at each other.” Now consider that against an AR-15 that can carry thirty round magazine, that can shoot forty-five rounds a minute, and an accuracy of about five hundred and fifty meters away. Obviously, these guns are extremely different. When this amendment was written, guns that could cause mass amounts of damage didn’t even exist, the argument that ownership of these weapons as an American right does not fully take this into account.
Additionally, it should be discussed why guns themselves cannot just be banned. Many anti-gun arguments like to use different countries like Australia as to why we need to get rid of all guns. In 1996, Australia saw a deadly mass shooting with about thirty-five people dead. One of the ways the Australian law-makers dealt with this was a nationwide gun buyback program. Many people believe this is a step the United States should take as well to help with the issue of gun violence. However this idea is just incredibly unrealistic for American Society. This is because guns are too big of a part of American Society to simply just convince people to make them disappear. For a wide array of reasons such as the Second Amendment, using them as protection and recreational usages, in reality it is not plausible to just “get rid” of all guns. Furthermore, the fact that in reality there are already so many guns in circulation, legal and illegal, in the United States that it is impractical to believe that a gun buyback or a ban will just make them go away. It is pretty evident that Americans hold the right to bear arms too deerly to ever give up their guns with a simple buyback or ban. In the Small Arms Survey by the Trace it can be shown that “American civilians own 393 million guns, both legally and otherwise, out of a worldwide total of 857 million firearms.” This shows that even if there was a ban or buyback, with the overwhelming amount of guns already in circulation, these methods wouldn’t do much to solve the problem of gun violence.
In addition many people want these guns as a form of protection. For example, many pro-gun supporters argue that if the Government were to take over and American society went into complete anarchy, they would want something to protect themselves. (As well as protection from anything seen as harmful). The slogan at a convention held by the NRA (National Rifle Association) was “Stand and Fight”. However, this idea is ludicrous because in reality if the Government ever did take over, AR-15s and guns like them would stand little to no chance. In reality, it seems that a lot of the pro-gun argument is based around fear. The executive vice president of the National Rifle Association,Wayne Lapierre, gave a speech at an NRA convention where he expresses “There are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers … I ask you: do you trust the government to protect you? We are on our own … The things we care about most are changing … It’s why more and more Americans are buying firearms and ammunition.” Pro-gun supporters in high positions of power play into the fear of “the other” and the fear to protect what you love, when in reality a military-grade gun is not a necessary tool of protection in any reasonable and plausible situation. There needs to be bans on semi-automatic weapons to show that the lives of American citizens are more important than the protections that have been placed on these weapons.
Another argument being the ability to go hunting. Many people use these guns for sport or for hunting animals. It is true that many people even do this as a means to survive, but not only is the possibility of hunting for food and/or sport still possible with a smaller gun, it is also much cheaper to use a smaller gun or to go and buy the food yourself. Taking into account not just the cost of the gun itself but also ammunition for the gun as well as having to clean the animal yourself. Giving up high power weapons when it comes to hunting is just a small sacrifice towards a larger greater good.
Instead of trying to completely wipe every single firearm off the face of the earth, there needs to be better regulations with stricter laws such as raising the age to purchase. As well as making it impossible for just anyone to buy a gun without first going through thorough background checks into mental well-being and criminal history. In the state of Florida, where the Parkland shooting took place, they do not require fingerprints, a waiting period, or a special permit to buy guns like the AR-15. The Business Insider reports that in Virginia “you can buy a semi-automatic gun in fifteen minutes” and when a reporter from the Philly Inquirer went in to purchase a firearm it took fifteen minutes to obtain an AR-15. As well as the fact that gun laws aren’t consistent from state to state. Furthermore, in 33 states, “private sellers are allowed to sell guns without performing any kind of background check — state or federal.” This is a problem. There needs to be a consistent set of rules and regulations for all states to follow to ensure that if a person is to own a gun, they are one hundred percent capable of having a gun without putting other in harm's way. An example country with stricter laws is Japan. In an article by the Business Insider it states that “If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.” Japan sees close to ten gun-related deaths a year. Stricter laws and regulations could be major step towards the end to gun violence. The impact of stricter, universal background checks could lessen the risk of dangerous individuals owning these powerful firearms.
In light of recent gun-related violence there needs to be serious change to our society. Everytime an event like this happens we cannot just simply offer up thoughts and prayers. We need real solutions and real action. One of the necessary steps to take towards that change is getting rid of military grade weapons like the AR-15 and the usage of bump stocks to make guns semi or fully automatic. If we want to see any progress made, we need to look at our values. Do we value protection of these deadly firearms or do we value the lives of innocent American citizens? If the lives of American citizens is more important then the path to change is clear. It is time to get rid of these unnecessary tools of mass violence because these weapons are futile and pose as a major threat to the safety and security of American Society.