Cody Nelson
Prof. Radzikowski
December 3, 2015
Persuasive Essay
Gun Control
Quite often nowadays, everyone will see bumper stickers or t-shirts that mention the peoples’ right to the Second Amendment. “My Second Amendment rights, Began: December 15, 1791 Expires: Never.” Citizens want to make their opinion known about how the government can’t take away their ownership rights to possess guns. Unfortunately, too many massacres have occurred within a short period of time and changes must be made. Although many people do not agree with the fact that gun laws needs to be altered, the United States of America needs to establish federal laws creating a filter for those who are allowed to possess a gun, rather than restricting guns altogether, due to the ongoing accidents that keep putting the US country into a depression.
In the past 30 years there have been about seventy mass shootings, twenty-five occurred in the last six years and four in the past six months. President Barack Obama recently decided that this is absurd and unacceptable for a great country like this one to tolerate so many horrible tragedies. The President plans to ban military-style assault weapons from public purchase. He has also proposed to issue background checks for all gun buyers and limit how many purchases can be made in a month. Today, it’s not only the President trying to make changes but also Congress along with numerous states attempting to construct new regulations. There is no telling how well these new laws and restrictions will result to though. This is not the first time a country has become strict with gun control. After Britain had an incident much like the Newtown massacre, less than a year later the Firearms Act of 1988 was introduced. This amendment made registration mandatory for owning shotguns while they banned semi-automatic weapons and pump-action weapons. Shortly after all private ownership of handguns was banned, thousands of firearms were confiscated along with their ammunition. CNN claimed it was one of the most shocking things that had happened in this country but it united them in a feeling that something had to be done. Incidents did not stop occurring and actually hit their peak in the 90s. In 2010, Britain had its most high-profile mass shooting in its history. After that, the number of incidents decreased rapidly throughout the years alongside the murder rate. The United States’ problems can be solved much like Great Britain solved theirs. They began with small regulations and laws and built their way to making it possible to have guns in the hands of those who are respected and trusted. Great Britain is a much smaller country than the US and issuing numerous laws and bans was simple compared to how difficult it would be for the US. There were only 200,000 legally registered handguns in Britain while there are 300 million firearms owned in the US. This would make it extremely difficult to attempt to take away all the guns throughout the country. The government knows that constricting the laws on guns will not end violence. People will find a new way to keep harming others and creating tragedies around the country but the hope is that it will minimize gun violence and will give people a better peace of mind.
A large conflict with using this method in the United States is its contradiction to the Second Amendment. It clearly states “A well regulate Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It violates the citizen’s rights to physically take away their purchased guns and ammunition. Although Britain’s statistics claim that the ban decreases the murder rate, these weapons also contribute to citizens’ safety. In a poll, 67% of the people that own guns, own them for protection against crime. People often need guns for protection in case of an intruder or any unsafe situation. There are over 100,000 incidents per year where innocent civilians would have been killed it they had not used a gun for protection. Those are just times when people came close to losing their lives. At least 989,883 times per years US civilians use guns just to primarily defend themselves. In a 1982 survey of male felons in ten different state prisons across the US, 34% were scared off or shot at by an armed victim while 40% did not even bother to commit their crime because they became aware that their prey had a gun on them. It is beneficial for US citizens to own weapons for pure protection in a sketchy situation but a great deal of these incidents can be prevented with stricter gun control laws.
US citizens won’t only become angered by the fact that their main form of protection is being taken away but also their ability to a sport. Thousands of citizens hunt for sport and for fun. Truth is, hunting already has many and many strict laws and regulations. There are rules on what type of weapon is allowed to kill certain types of animals. Classes and training are required for the hunters to understand how many animals and types of animals are allowed to be hunt along with a distinct time and place of where they can be killed. Hunting for a sport with a firearm is already strict enough and that platform of rules do not need to be tampered with. If a citizen is legally hunting then they are already certified as a gun owner and any type of crime they commit with be traced back to them immediately. The future restrictions of gun control do not need to include hunting as one of the areas that it affects.
In 2008, roughly 16,272 murders occurred in the US just during those twelve months. A little under 70% were committed with firearms. Last years homicide rate was concluded that one in every 250 Americans is murdered and the majority of them with a firearm. It was also in a recent survey that 50% of inmates are serving time for a violent crime with use of a firearm. If more restrictions are put on firearms then it’s quite possible that many of these people wouldn’t even attempt such crimes. Of course any other weapon can be used in a hurtful event but guns aren’t the only protection that victims can use. Mace or pepper spray of used by millions of people around the country and definitely harms a predator. Along with other simple precautions that people are taught in their everyday basic life such as: Don’t walk to your car alone, always tell someone where you’re going, and of course the buddy system. Since kindergarten, every human was taught these simple rules for a reason. Citizens do not need to carry around pounds of ammunition and assault weapons just to be safe when these common knowledge facts can easily prevent thousands of incidents.
President Obama is right on point when he claims that one of the provisions needs to be background checks. These should be fairly strict because of the past people that have committed crimes and predators that have planned massacres. Any past issues of anger or depression should restrict a person from owning a gun. Anger can lead to quick violent impulses and depression can harm a person’s mind making them think unclearly. A citizen with a criminal record shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm due to the fact that it can make them turn back to their past ways and possibly get them into even more trouble. The main problem that many people have an issue with is mental health problems. Newton, Aurora, and a few other great tragedies, were committed by people who had a form of autism but that shouldn’t ruin it for many others. This doesn’t mean that every human being with autism can’t be trusted and will eventually go on a killing spree. The background check with mental health issues should be overlooked many times and carefully thought of. It’s possible to give them the right to own a firearm and just keep a closer eye on them than the government would on others but that might be the only solution in order to be as fair as possible.
If gun violence is so difficult to solve, what is the solution? Out of the current plans today, again, I believe that background checks will be the most successful. Instituting background checks on all firearm buyers would be an easy and productive way to separate some of the criminals from the harmless. Also, the fact that the mentally ill are being viewed as unstable killers and the primary reason for instituting background checks is completely preposterous. Sally Satellite, a psychiatrist states in her article, "Severely I'll people account for only 3 to 5 percent of violent crimes in the general population." As far as the effectiveness of background checks goes, however, the fact that most of the guns used in crimes are bought illegally means that even background checks will not solve the problem. In addition to other radical ideas, the plan of banning most firearms is yet another impossible task. Adam Winkler of The University of California states, "One key to ratcheting down the emotions in the gun debate is to move beyond disbarment and to recognize the permanence of guns in America. With approximately 300 million guns already in circulation and gun owners unlikely to ever comply with orders to turn in their guns, the guns are here to stay." This quote proves that the plethora of firearms in the United States is currently insurmountable by any bans. Although this is a fact, I believe that gun enthusiasts need to open their eyes to new suggestions that may arise from the debate. Stubbornness, in this debate, will solve nothing. Any laws that are enacted by the United States government will not violate the second amendment, which seems to be the gun lovers' primary tool for argument. We, as Americans, need to sacrifice our emotional attachments to guns in order to create a safer future. Robert Walker, who was previously the legislative director for Handgun Control, writes in his New York Times article, "… there is nothing in the Constitution or our love of guns that should prelude us from enacting sensible gun laws that would significantly reduce gun violence, and we can do so without jeopardizing the right of law-abiding Americans to own guns." This quotation shows that, because reforms can be made to guns in America without violating the constitution, gun lovers should be more accepting of necessary plans to reduce violence. In addition to this statement, Mr. Walker adds, "having a gun in the home – assault weapon or otherwise – is accost acted with a much higher risk of death or injury," which supports my opinion that there are positive effects to gun restrictions which need to be considered by gun enthusiasts.
The United States has been put through far too many tragedies and murders in such a short amount of time. This country will decline and go way down hill if no solution is found to this nationwide problem. New gun control laws need to be enforced and hopefully this country will positively rise.