Smart Gun Laws
Once upon a time, two young boys asked a friend to get a couple of guns
for them. This was not a hard task for the friend, just a matter of going
to a gun show and handing over some money. A few months later, the violent
and angry duo opened fire on their friends at school. They killed 12
students and one teacher, wounded over other 20 students, and finally killed
themselves. The two boys’ names were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and
they went to Columbine High School (Currie-McGhee 8-9). This fateful
day revived an age-old debate over gun control. The issue over gun rights
and gun restrictions has been brewing since the 12th century when guns were
first used to prevent rebellions. When European settlers migrated to
the United States, they brought their firearms, giving rise to gun culture
in America (Currie-McGhee 13-15). Fear of rebellion prompted lawmakers to
impose gun control, but the current laws are inadequate, and America’s
gun violence problem is getting out of control. On average, firearms take
the lives of 20 young people every day (“Legal Community”), and are
involved in over 150,000 aggravated assaults in the United States annually (“Crime in the U.S.”). New and effective gun restrictions must be made and used in conjunction with new gun safety measures in order to truly alleviate the
gun violence problem.
Opponents of gun restrictions often cite the second amendment when gun
restrictions are being discussed. The 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”
(“NRA-ILA”). This controversial amendment clearly states that the “right to
bear arms” is only given to members of a militia, or the army in today’s
terms(Adler). It has yet to be proven that the Founding Fathers
intended to allow any adult in the United States to have the right to own a gun. In fact, many say that the Bill of Rights does not give an individual the
right to own a gun, it simply allows members of the militaries to carry
firearms (Cornell). Nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from
making laws restricting gun use (Kirvin). Therefore, opponents of gun
regulation cannot use the second amendment as a shield; there will
always be exceptions to the Bill of Rights. Just as the freedom of speech does
not extend to all situations, the “right to bear arms” is not absolute, and
some restrictions to gun ownership need to be implemented (Cornell).
The second amendment is not a sufficient reason to keep effective gun
control laws from passing.
Furthermore, forget about the “right to bear arms,” what about a
citizen’s right to not get shot? Without gun regulations, violent massacres and
death as a result of a gun use would become more frequent in the United
States. Some opponents of gun control argue that a gun control law will not really be able to change violence and death rates due to gun use in America.
They say current gun control laws do not really affect the criminals; these
laws only affect law abiding citizens (Wanner). Congress has yet to make big
changes in the gun rights and restrictions department, but that is no
reason to completely obliterate them. It is true that the gun laws need
to be reformed, but all that is needed is a gun violence expert who will
help make the law more effectively target criminals (Currie- McGhee 41). In
order to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, the country needs
strong, straightforward laws that will not cause any confusion (“Legal
Community”). To truly bring about changes, the laws would have to be
similar those of Massachusetts, which has gun regulations that are stricter
than federal laws such as the requirement of a license to even purchase a
firearm (“M.G.L.”). One solution would be to require all gun dealers to do
a background check on all of their customers (Rosenthal). In the past,
private dealers were not required to do so, but now the need for
background checks is clear (Currie-McGhee 44). If every gun seller started doing
background checks, the Columbine incident could have been avoided
because the person who bought the guns for Harris and Klebold acquired the guns
very quickly and easily but later regretted her decision stating that she
would not have bought or gave the guns to the boys if she was forced to
give person information. Without the friend to buy the gun, the boys
would not be able to legally obtain a gun because of their age. So, it is
possible that a routine background check could have saved those people
killed at Columbine (Currie-McGhee 8-9). Next, the government should
require that anyone looking to own a gun has a safety certificate to
prove that they have taken a gun safety course (“Legal Community”). Through
the enforcement of these laws and others, criminals will have a difficult
time getting their hands on guns, but law abiding citizens will be virtually
unaffected because most already go through this process to get their guns.
Therefore, the laws will target any convict looking to get his/her hands on
a firearm.
Gun control laws used with safety measures will deliver the best
outcome in the long run. There are many very simple methods that can be easily and cost-efficiently put into use which would help prevent many of the shootings and killings due to gun violence. Firstly, Americans need to recognize that it is mostly the greedy gun manufacturers and lobbyists who are standing in the way of real gun reform, and they should not be allowed to control the safety of the American people (Rosenthal). When someone buys a gun, it should come with technology that will only allow the intended user to fire to ensure that all gun users have gone through the extensive background checks and are deemed responsible enough to own a gun. Manufacturers should be forced to make smart safe guns and trigger locks, which would deter the use of stolen guns in shootings. They currently have the technology for smart, personalized guns, but are unwilling to manufacture. This would also prevent many accidental shootings and deaths caused by children who come across a gun. Trigger locks should also be
required in guns, so anyone planning to fire the gun will need to slow
down and remove the lock before they can shoot, preventing inadvertent shootings(Currie-McGhee 70-71). Another tactic that will protect against gun
violence is mandatory waiting periods, this will require anyone looking to buy a gun to file an application and wait a number of days before they can buy a gun. These waiting periods can keep individuals from getting his/her gun too soon. Many people buy guns while in an aggressive and violent mood, and if they can buy the gun immediately, the consequences could be dreadful(Currie-McGhee 45). As an added defense against gun-related killings, ammunition should be taxed more heavily, limiting the number of bullets criminals can obtain. All of these factors can contribute to lowering gun violence, the ultimate goal, but the most important technique is just to conduct extensive background checks. A gun should never fall into the possession of a lawbreaker who has a violent history of criminal behavior (Kirvin). There are a myriad of ways to prevent gun violence; Americans just need to open their eyes and accept more stringent rules and regulations.
New and significant changes to the law and gun safety measures must be
used in harmony with one another to quickly bring down the number of firearm
related crimes. Lawmakers who use the second amendment to bring down gun use restrictions either have not heard or do not care about the fact that this “right to bear arms” has cost Americans $2.3 billion and over 30,000 deaths annually (“Legal Community”). While it may be true that current gun regulations have not done too much to help solve this crisis, but that is because politicians are refusing to face the facts. In states like Massachusetts, gun control has worked and these laws can easily be adopted into federal law. On the other end, new technologies and methods can be incorporated into the American gun culture.
I meant to post this essay a long time ago, that way, when I turned it in to turnitin.com, it would show up as 100% plagiarized, but I guess somewhere along the way I decided that that would not be a very good idea.
