To Own A Gun or Not to Own One

Gun control has and continues to be a topic of interest. In the wake of one of the more recent tragedies, the shooting in Newtown, CT, America is one again faced with the dilemma of gun control and the consequences of such. While history can be examined for what has been done previously about guns and the right to bear arms, this in effect is a new day. The slaying of the victims of Newtown created fervor in Americans that had not been seen in sometime. Gun control is one of the most prevalent items on the agenda that the government should handle in order to prevent further acts of violence. 

While the basis of the gun control argument is not strictly on the crutch of the Newtown massacre, that incident did not aid the opposition's notion that guns are not the issue. By having gun laws, Americans would be able to rightfully defend themselves against criminals and potential government tyranny. In an ever-changing world, people cannot solely depend on law enforcement to protect them. That is not to say that law enforcement has not provided the necessary protection thus far, but with incidents involving guns and violence, it becomes an everyman for himself kind of world unfortunately. America needs gun control. Why, you ask?

About 80 Americans die as a result of bloodshed on a daily basis. It is our task to cooperatively come together and include our voices in influencing the government to enact laws regarding guns. We have an obligation as citizens to prevent further acts of violence and to pursue the conversation that until as of late, no one wanted to have. The loss of life and the impact of gun violence on American society have been summarized over the years. Countless Americans have lost their lives as a result of pistols, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatics, pick you poison. In wars. In being innocent bystanders. Whatever one's political point of view may be, it is time for a national conversation, a real one on gun control. In a study performed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2013) many facts were revealed such as "less than 1% of gun murder victims were killed as a part of incidents with four or more victims; in at least 40% of the incidents, the shooter killed a current spouse or intimate partner; assault weapons were used in 28% of the incidents and when they were used, more than twice the number of people were shot and 50% more were killed" (Nickitas). What does that tell us exactly? That we do not understand the grave influence of guns in our society. We have simply turned a blind eye to the atrocities, the travesties and the endless amount of bodies piling up in our cities.

Proponents of guns argue that gun control laws will not save lives. Stephen E. Wright in his editorial, "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives," writes "anti-gun groups continually focus on gun ownership and reiterate old arguments that studies have proven to be false. For example, gun control advocates claim that if individuals are allowed to carry concealed firearms, more gun fights will occur. The fact is, however, that law-abiding citizens are already permitted to carry concealed guns in forty states, and no increase in shoot-outs has resulted" (Wright). Yet, what Wright does not seem to comprehend is that no one is saying that guns should be removed, but what is being stated is that guns should be controlled. Many proponents of guns seem to wave a kind of sleight of hand magic when they engender discussion on guns. They make the anti-gun folks out to be the bad guys, the criminals who want to remove their right to bear arms. This is far from the real truth. We need gun control because it will prevent gun violence. How can there be more gun control? One item of mentioning on the table is an updated background check system.

The background check structure was devised by Congress in 1993 to forbid certain people from being able to purchase guns. This is not working successfully and competently at all. Through new guidelines, however, it will. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System could be an efficient way in preventing gun violence. One such parameter would necessitate that forenames of all individuals known or considered to be risky or criminal to be recorded in the NICS database and that companies and organizations that sell guns would have to reference this database every time a gun was purchased, ("Opposing Viewpoints in Context") that way there would be an effective measuring tool to know who is buying these guns.

It would seem as though this should be common sense to all of us living in America to have the necessary checks and balances associated with guns, especially given our nation's history. Yet, critics of gun control laws say that these are mere recycled arguments by those in favor of more restriction and prevention of the violence that is occurring on the American landscape. The current system is broken and needs fixing. Our traditional ways of doing things, unfortunately have brought us to the point to where the conversation needs to happen as to what happens with guns and gun violence. 

With a plethora of loopholes and incomplete records, many acts of gun violence could have potentially been thwarted such as the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, the shooting in Tuscon, AZ that wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and even the Columbine massacre that occurred in 1999. In each of these particular cases, the incompleteness in the background checks prevented the system from doing its job and thus, our country suffered as a result. The system "needs to be fixed by creating a comprehensive system to keep guns out of the hands. [This can be done] in two ways. Get all the name s of people who should be prohibited from buying a gun into the background check system and close the loopholes in the background check by requiring a check for every gun sale" ("Opposing Viewpoints in Context"). This is not currently being done because where guns are available for sale in certain corners of these United States, no background checks are required, thereby permitting anyone and everyone to purchase a gun and do with it what they so choose to do with it.

But the road to gun control will be a brazen one. Opposers of gun control in Congress have demonstrated that even a breakthrough on the violence argument is not convincing enough to shift the dynamic running in America by those in favor of guns. The Republicans in Congress have continually sought to block any kind of bill that proposes gun control. While these individuals understand the ramifications of blocking bills designed to protect the safety of Americans, they have continued to do it thus stifling the conversation. Supporters of the gun control bill have fought hard and long and will continue to do so, so the laws regarding guns can be fundamentally altered ("The Rugged Road for Gun Control"). The road will be a brazen one because of the fact that the argument becomes cyclical in nature. Cyclical because the Republicans oppose gun control laws, and then the Democrats vote to break the filibuster and then the Republicans try and propose amendments to the bill that circumvent what the very bill tries to eliminate.

One fascinating argument that is often panned by proponents of guns is that it is not guns that kill, but the people. While this is a true statement, controlling access to the guns will hopefully prohibit killings. The proponents proclaim that facts are misconstrued by those in favor of gun control and that we are not safer if guns are out of society. Here again, the main crux of the argument that gun proponents make is that those who want gun control want to obliterate guns completely and that is not the case. Americans are in favor of stricter laws regarding guns, not getting rid of them. The proponents continually state that gun control law favorers spew rhetoric, but it appears as if they are ones misconstruing the facts regarding what is actually hoped to be obtained by gun control laws being established and/or reinforced.

It is important to note that those in favor of gun control understand that it is not a panacea or cure, but the good news is that its reason is implicit. Most know and understand how effective gun control can be and how the problem of evil can potentially be combated with the involvement of society. Society has often looked the other way when faced head on with its problems. 'Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on bacterial infections. Some violence will always go on. What gun control [will be] good at is controlling guns. Those who oppose gun control have made it a moral choice, that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they [received from] owning guns and seeing guns owned" (Gopnik). It would seem that gun control is then an ethical argument and has been all along.  A potential plan of action would be for the American people to continue to fight alongside those who are in favor of gun control in order to keep the conversation going and not let it die.

Even with the Newtown massacre and the many massacres that have happened in America as a result of gun violence, that those who support owning guns would somehow wake up and smell the coffee. Gun control will be a good enforcement measure to prevent future acts of violence and somehow those that support guns do not comprehend that fact. This is why the debate rages on even with a Democratic president in the Oval Office and a majority Democratic Senate. But often it takes a tragedy to strike in your own backyard before you wake up to the proverbial truths. That is not to say that anyone in favor of gun control is wishing something on an individual or group that does not favor it. It is a simply a statement of fact, that people often have to learn the hard way. 

Works Cited

Gopnik, Adam. "The Simple Truth About Gun Control." The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 20 Dec. 2012. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/the-simple-truth-about-gun-control.html.

Nickitas, Donna M. "With Our Voices and Our Votes: Advocating Gun Control."Nursing Economics 31.2 (2013): 57+

"Opposing Viewpoints in Context." Guns and Crime. Gale Cengage Learning, 2012. http://ic.galegroup.com

"The Rugged Road for Gun Control." The New York Times 11 Apr. 2013: <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/the-rugged-road-for-gun-control.html>.

Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 2012. http://ic.galegroup.com