Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

The Blue & Gray Press | October 24, 2017

Scroll to top

Top

Gun control: why it is necessary

Gun control: why it is necessary

By NOELLE PAOLICELLI

Gun control is an effort aimed to halt the rise in violent crime by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms. Last year, handguns alone killed 10,728 people in the United States of America, according to PolitiFact.

Based on this one fact, it should be no surprise that gun control is an important issue, especially in our upcoming 2016 Presidential election; Donald Trump supporters will most likely mock this article, while Bernie Sanders supporters will probably take the time to read this article in its entirety.

The word ‘gun’ brings to mind violence, crime, protection and death because we hear about it so frequently in the news. Guns can be used to threaten and kill or to defend, hunt and protect. No matter which side of the political spectrum you fall under, you have to agree that guns are powerful tools.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media tries to ignore and downplay this fact.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, in 2015, there were 330 mass shootings and the public hears about one in six of these shootings.

We all have heard about the devastation in Newtown, Virginia Tech and Columbine. These incidents have devastated families and brought about fears and insecurities. They have compromised one’s right to life. Limiting access to handguns would help prevent senseless killings of innocent people by criminals and the mentally ill.

Some of the gun control laws currently in effect say no person convicted of a crime can own a gun, a person must be 21 years or older to purchase a handgun, and the most profound, 1993 Brady Handgun Control Act, which requires a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun, as well as, a background check system to ensure against the possession of guns by criminals.

The Brady Handgun Control Act acknowledges that guns are powerful tools, and has made it more difficult to purchase and own a gun. Since gun handling can result in serious consequences, the Brady Handgun Control Act should comfort Americans. It does not aim at disrespecting the Second Amendment.

Those opposed to gun control feel that they have a right to possess guns per the Second Amendment. But we need to understand the nation in 1791 was very different than the nation in 2016.

Pro-Gun advocates feel that a gun would be a self-defense weapon. But wouldn’t it be better if a citizen found themselves in a horrifying situation, if neither of them had a gun. Is it possible to enact stricter gun control laws?

We are the young voting citizens of this great nation and must be aware of the debate over gun control, as it will continue to affect our communities and our nation. Sadly, guns and the outcomes of their use have become top news stories all too frequently in our world.

Guns are dangerous weapons and we need to make changes in the laws regarding the possession of firearms. Gun control is important to preserve the well- being of your loved ones.

Comments

  1. Jake Kalkstein

    There are over 300 million guns on US soil today. What could possibly make you think that stricter gun control laws will “prevent” criminals from obtaining firearms?
    The fact is that stricter gun control laws will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms in order to protect themselves.
    Less guns is simply not the solution to gun violence. In fact less guns increases gun violence.
    For example, in the UK as gun control increased and the number of licensed guns decreased, violent crime and gun crime skyrocketed.
    (http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-U.K.-Violent-Crime-and-Firearm-Ownership-Rates-Before-and-After-1997.png)

    This one statistic, among a myriad of others, suggest that less guns is not the solution.
    In fact, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is arguably the only viable solution.
    Guns stop guns–think about it. If you were a violent criminal wouldn’t you be less likely to invade someone’s home, rob a store or commit a mass shooting if there was a high probability of someone there having a gun on them?
    Or if you were in the presence of a mass shooter, wouldn’t you want a citizen in the vicinity to have a gun on them in order to stop the shooter?
    Guns stop guns! It’s only when police arrive or the shooter takes their own life that a mass shooting is halted.
    Ever notice how no one has been dumb enough to shoot up an NRA building? Or a police station? Hmmmm I wonder why…

  2. Anonymous

    wrong jake. The terminator shot up a police station!
    I agree with everything you said. And while allowing citizens to be armed may not sound like a perfect system, its the best we can do given the hard data.