Pew Research Center states that there are anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the U.S. As these deadly weapons reside in the homes of 37 percent of Americans, gun control is causing much debate today. Are the proposed gun restrictions stepping on our Second Amendment rights? Will enforcing these stronger controls actually reduce crime rates? Or is our government simply attempting to take away a major form of citizen protection? My opinion? Gun control in no way violates our Second Amendment rights, and ultimately, restrictions have the ability to greatly reduce gun crime rates.
According to The New York Times, “gun control” is a broad term used to explain any restrictions and obligations placed on firearms and their keepers in regards to buying, selling, possessing, storing and carrying firearms. Commonly proposed restrictions throughout the U.S. include waiting periods, background checks, carrying limitations and registration requirements in regards to purchasing and selling guns. What’s so bad about a few restraints? I think we could add a few more.
I’ve never been a fan of guns, mainly because I don’t see any good they serve. As a form of protection, I understand the opposite argument. However, if these devices were not in the hands of so many, would we need protection? Wouldn’t a knife or a bat suffice in most instances if guns were not on the streets but crime persisted?
More often than not, we hear unfortunate stories of innocent deaths, whether accidental or purposeful, at the hands of individuals that never should have had the opportunity to touch a gun. Whether the victim is an innocent bystander hit in the crossfire of a revengeful ambush or a student killed during mass shootings at clubs and schools, guns have turned our world into a scary place. How many national stories do we hear in which the gun was used as a form of protection rather than a weapon of destruction?
While Time Magazine states mass shootings account for a very small percentage of the U.S.’s gun-related homicides, the number of mass shootings has risen within the last couple decades. Mother Jones, a nonprofit news organization, presents extensive data on all mass shootings that have occurred from 1982 to the present, showing a gradual rise in the number of mass shootings from one in 1982 to seven in 2015. Since July of this year alone, five mass shootings have been reported. Astoundingly, out of the 67 shooters in the past 30 years, 65 had mental health issues and 55 obtained the weapons illegally, according to Global Research, a center for research on globalization. This shows negligence associated with the buying and selling of guns. As some states hold policies to search costumers’ mental health files when applying for a gun, all background checks should incorporate some form of investigation into mental health. It further brings into question why gun owners can purchase so many bullets at one time.
Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal,” in her “Libertarian Convention” episode said that although Omar Mateen, the shooter who killed 49 and injured 53 individuals at Pulse night club in Orlando, beat his wife, was reported multiple times to employers as homophobic and unhinged and was twice questioned by the FBI for terrorism. But none of those factors disqualified Mateen from legally purchasing a gun that shot 45 rounds per minute.
In Florida alone, an AR-15, nicknamed America’s gun, can be bought with no waiting period. These guns were introduced into a society I’ve watched grow more and more unstable. For what purpose do we need assault rifles? We ask ourselves why such terrible events happen, but by distributing such firepower, we are aiding the destruction. These guns should never have made it into the market, let alone be so easily attainable.
The facts are overwhelming. Why do we, as Americans, feel we deserve the right to obtain, sell and carry such destructive weapons if we cannot even keep control of them? They are falling into dangerous hands simply because we are choosing to make money rather than keep our country safe. If we, as distributors, cannot ethically sell these weapons; if we, as consumers, cannot lock them away when not in use; if we, as a government, cannot guarantee our nation’s safety with the circulation of such arms, then we, as a whole, do not deserve to hold such power. We deserve even greater precautions.
By implementing lengthy wait periods after background checks, limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased and researching previous or present metal health states, we promise our citizens that we are taking strides toward a safer country.
Our Second Amendment states, “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.” As many gun control activists believe, I am largely in agreement that guns belong only in the hands of law enforcement, government officials and military personnel.
