In the era of rising gun violence, every day, we hear depressing news about random shootings in public settings, and how gun violence is ripping through the whole country. Sure, everyone should have a right to bear arms, but this does not give a right to take away loved ones from someone. No one should be afraid of getting shot at a concert, a church or at a school, and it should absolutely be harder for everyone to get a gun.
Gun control is one of the most controversial topics that sort of divide the audience up. However, it is still very essential to talk about gun regulations and take necessary actions since the issue has been out of control for decades. Gun violence is on the rise, and gun-related deaths have been consistently increasing over the past years (Bonnie, et al.). 2017 Las Vegas shooting killed 58 people, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting killed 49, 2007 Virginia Tech shooting killed 32, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting 27, 2017 Texas church killed 26, 2018 Parkland shooting killed 17, etc. (Saeed). But still, gun laws remain irrelevant. Most weapons in these mass shootings were obtained legally, and semiautomatic rifles are one of the most common weapons used by these mass shooters (Bonnie et al.). It is devasting to see news about innocent people getting shot out of nowhere as well as irritating to hear the remorse from the congress for these people instead of doing something effective regarding to the guns.
The reason why there has always been a significant increase in gun shootings is mostly because it is very easy to get guns in America. It is even more accessible than a mental healthcare. An article supported this fact by saying that “For example, private collectors can elude a requirement of the Brady Law by purchasing firearms from an unlicensed seller who does not perform background checks” (“Gun Control”). In many states, private gun sellers at the gun shows are not required to perform background checks on buyers which is a huge opportunity for people who have psychological issues. In addition to that, people can even purchase an assault rifle as easily as breathing from these private sellers.
Most gun advocates would argue that they need guns for protection. It is understandable, but is assault rifle also known as a military weapon really necessary? At this rate, North Korea would not even need to try. They can just sit back and enjoy watching mentally unstable American teenagers with very fashionable assault rifles shooting students down at schools. Everyone deserves to live in a safe community. In order to do that, congress needs to stop avoiding outrageous attempt to hide loopholes and start implementing a solid universal background at every gun sale and ban every assault weapon for civilians.
Gun advocates also like to argue that gun control does not work. It is an incorrect and utterly ridiculous statement. Australian government introduced gun control after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre and banned semi and automatic guns. No mass shootings since, and that was 1996. Hand guns are also banned in UK immediately after the Dulane school shooting in 1996. As a result, no further mass shootings in the country. If common sense gun reform is implemented systematically like Britain and Australia did, it will also certainly work in America too. The problem is in U.S, half the population were outraged over a proposal for harsher gun laws. How many more school shootings and deaths do these people need to witness?
The main argument that comes up against gun reform is mostly about only criminals having guns when guns get banned in the country. The guns that were used in the school shootings costs about $1000 in America. If someone wants to buy a hand gun in U.K. or in Australia, it will cost more than the double of the price America. It is going to be extremely expensive because the black-market always skies rocket those prices. If criminals have that much money then, why would they even need to commit crimes? It could have easily prevented the school shootings that were committed by the teenage students.
Gun owners who are responsible should be able to own guns. However, not all gun owners are like that. Majority of gun supporters want guns only because they love guns. They don’t care about anyone’s safety. It has never once been about that, and they want guns just because owning a gun makes them feel powerful. Nevertheless, this argument is more acceptable because it is very straightforward. The nonsense that people hear a lot is about using guns for protection. Again, is that why military weapons are being bought and displayed in the living rooms? There is a higher chance that a person is going to use that gun on himself than he is to use it for “protection” because two-thirds of the gun-related deaths are suicides (“Gun Control”). They would still argue that what if they get robbed? Nobody carries guns in their hands every single hour. If the victim locks the gun up in the safe, he will still need time to unlock that safe meanwhile the robber finishes a meal. If he did not lock it up safely, then he becomes an irresponsible gun owners. If one of his lunatic friends picks it up and brings it to a public place to shoot up, it would end up with a lot of deaths. Sure, it does not sound so bad. What if his kid picks it up? Would he start to put an effort to actually care about these killing machines? Guns are not the only option when it comes to defending oneself. Guns are the least safe weapon to have around in a household.
Surprisingly enough, this topic about guns is very similar to a topic about slavery. Back then, slavery was also a provocative topic that nobody really wanted to talk about. When laws for banning slavery were proposed, majority of the population were outraged. They were indeed very responsible at keeping slaves safely in cages. They wanted slavery because it made them feel powerful and also to use them as “protection.”
In every country, including America, there are rules that regulate cars such as licensing and speed limits on the roads. This is because deaths caused by vehicles increased when people started driving, and the government made changes in regulations to prevent or to reduce the deaths so that people would feel safer. Unlike cars, a gun’s one and only purpose is to kill. The motto of most gun advocates is “Guns don’t kill. People do.” The answer to gun violence is always to blame on someone or something else. So, when someone hits a person with a car intentionally, would he be responsible, or his car would be responsible? If driving regulations worked in a similar way as the guns since they share a similar outcome then, no one would be driving at a speed of 45 mph.
Instead of banning guns or even executing effective stricter gun regulations, the NRA started proposing bizarre plans like arming teachers and security guards with guns and limiting entrances and exits (Adubato). The author, Adubato, endorsed this impractical proposal by stating that “We should be able to explain to our children that the armed officer in their school is part of a larger effort to protect them, along with evacuation and disaster drills.” Let the students have a typical normal student life. Let them worry about homework and exams as they are supposed to.
News about school shootings can be also found way back in time. “On 24 March 1998, eleven¬ year ¬old Andrew Golden and thirteen¬ year ¬old Mitchell Johnson gathered several weapons from one of the boys' relatives and then stationed themselves on a hill overlooking the Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas” (Spitzer). These kids ended up shooting up the school, and yes, there were deaths. It is just uncanny to see horrible events like this from 1998 over and over again in this 20th century. If the answer to mass shootings is “more guns,” then why is “denuclearization” on the list?
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyrannical government as it was stated in the article with the quote saying “Fearing that the federal government would use its standing army to force its will on the states, the authors of the Second Amendment intended to protect the state militias’ right to bear arms” (“Gun Control”). In that case, why should the government decide in both who gets the guns and what types of guns the people can get? There should be no automatics for civilians, and military weapons should only be used by the military. Guns do not belong in schools, malls, theatres, and in places of worship. Common sense gun laws would save many lives, or even closing the gun fair loopholes that only requires background checks would be a brilliant start.
It is in the constitution to bear arms, but the constitution can be changed whenever it is needed to. It has been changed before, and it can be changed again. An article also says that “While gun control advocates consider Florida a permissive, pro-gun state, Texas is even more permissive, allowing gun owners to openly carry their handguns” (Oppel). Responsible owners should be able to own guns; however, people should not have to worry about how often they become a target for someone else’s practice aiming.
If the congress wants to be unreasonably ignorant, they absolutely can anytime, but at least, universal rigorous background checks on the sales and keeping weapons of war on the battlefield are what they can do to create a safer environment to the community from the gun violence.