
In modern United States' politics, the issue of background checks being necessary for the purchase of fire-arms is heavily debated.  While some believe that our current ways of handling fire arms are fine, some want a little more regulation in how guns are acquired, such as Eric Frazier describes in "Victims of Gun Violence Deserve Prayer, but Also Gun Control Reforms." In that blog, Frazier explains points out how little has actually been done to reduce gun violence. Then there are extremist on both sided, believing in no restrictions surrounding guns or no gun at all. There are so many different, polarizing opinions on this topic, and that is largely due to the background around this topic. In fact, the discussion dates back to the days when our constitution was being created.



Legality of guns was a topic of this country's politics since the constitution, which gave the people the ability to own fire arms in the second amendment. Given that they were just leaving being a colony for many years and fighting for their freedom, the founding fathers found it best to include an amendment about raising state militia incase the government became to tyrannical. It seems that even back when the amendment was first being created there were debates or what it stood for. "While the Second Amendment was under consideration, some commentators referred to it as an individual right to be exercised outside of a militia, and after it was adopted, other writers also referred to it as protecting more than a militia-based right." (LINDGREN). Talal Al-Khatib builds a case for the second amendment to be focus around the rights of the people rather than the militia, saying that militias were well organized by that point. However, even he admits that back then the Founding Fathers regulated firearms. The states would keep track of who had guns and could inspect them in a private home. They could even fine citizen for not reporting the guns to a muster (Al-Khatib). Another reason it is unclear is that the fourteenth amendment arguable extends the second amendment to the states ("Second Amendment").

Today we deal with this issue being debated non-stop, with so many different opinions on what to do about it. The biggest reason for this insurgent of discussion is how many more people have been dying from fire-arms recently. A recent study done by an anonymous author states that "The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 ... was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1." ("Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence"). While a statistic like that may make some believe that there needs to be some form of gun control, to others it means the opposite. For example, in August of 2013, a proposed and supported bill in Missouri would, if enacted, have made all gun safety legislature null and void. Not only that, but it would have also allowed the arrest of those who chose to enforce gun safety laws.



This is obviously an important topic, but just how important can sometimes be understatement. In the year 1997, the CDC released a statement saying that having a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide by family or acquaintance. In response, people who oppose gun control lobbied for a bill to be taken place that prevents the CDC from advocating gun control, which prevented the CDC from doing further research in the safety of gun in the home or elsewhere ("Gun Violence Research."). This battle is preventing us, as a community, from being able to stop innocents from dying before there times. We need to help the people that suffer from the dangers that our current gun affairs have allowed to occur. To do this, we need to enact better and tighter gun safety laws that make it harder for people that are likely to do harmful acts with fire arms to acquire guns. The first logical step in this would be to make background checks mandatory in any fire-arm purchase.


Why do we need to punish the people that haven't done anything by making it harder to obtain a gun? Well, that question ignores the idea that freedoms come with constrains, as President Obama states in a speech he gave on January 5th, 2016. "We understand there are some constraints on freedom in order to protect innocent people, we cherish our right to private, but we accept we have to go through metal detector before going on a plane." (UpTakeVideo). In this comparison, Obama identifies how the constrains on our freedom actually make us a safer nation. By accepting that we have to go through a metal detector, we prevent people from bring dangerous weapons on the flight and hurting passengers, and Obama says it should be the same with regards to buying guns. Obama, in that speech, later talks about how one in thirty people that buy guns online have a criminal record. By enforcing background check people are not punished, but instead we apply necessary restrictions that serve to protect the freedoms of the citizens.

With that in mind, who is responsible for this becoming such a partisan issue? Something Obama points out in his speech is that most gun owners agree with more gun safety laws. After the Sandy Hook shootings, in 2013, a common since bill was proposed that would require a background check to be required to purchase any guns that ninety percent of the people supported and ninety percent of democrats voted for it, but failed because ninety percent of republican voted against it (UpTakeVideo). 


According to Alan Berlow, "the N.R.A. has single-handedly dictated the shape of the debate over guns for decades". The bill that was vetod to ninety percent of republican voters voting against it was not passed because the N.R.A. made threats that dictated how the senators voted. The opponents argue that criminals don't submit background check to begin with (Berlow).

"That story wasn't quite accurate, though. Since some background checks were first implemented in 1994, gun dealers have turned away more than two million felons, drug users, unauthorized immigrants and other "prohibited persons," according to a report by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence." (Berlow).

It isn't as if the N.R.A. has done more than just spread controversy on the issue of guns. They have actively worked to prevent something from being done to help reduce gun violence and trafficking. They have prevented federal government from tracking data of multiple sales, which indicate possible trafficking, inacted measures that don't require dealers for have an accurate inventory, and keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or A.T.F., under a small budget with little power. The N.R.A. has done more to further increase gun violence than to help prevent gun violence. They have proven they do not represent the views of the large majority of gun owners (Berlow).


It seems like people thing we can only react to gun violence, and that trying to stop it from happening in the first place is a fruitless endeavor; however, people who say that are wrong. There are many organizations out there today that work towards ending violence before it starts.  One such example is an organization in Chicago called Cure Violence that sends people called "interrupters" to area were violence occurs to diffuse violence before it happens. (Truesdell).

"Cure Violence, which relies on government and foundation grants, aims to shift the conversation from gun control and criminal justice to understanding what drives people to act violently in the first place" (Truesdell). This organization is successful. It caused the amount if shooting in seven communities to drop somewhere as low as 41 percent and as high as 73 percent, depending on the community. (Truesdell).

Are we going to stop every act of violence that could occur? Probably not, but is that still a reason to not try? President Obama denounced that idea in his speech on January 5th, 2016. 

"We know we can't stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe can try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence ... We maybe can't save everybody, but we can safe some. Just as we don't prevent all traffic accidents, but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents." (UpTakeVideo)

Is a government meant to protect and serve its people doing its job right if they don't try any precaution that could save its citizens, such as requiring background checks when purchasing guns? 

"After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by fourth percent; meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits gun deaths have increased to almost fifty percent higher than the national average." (Berlow)


Peter Roff's, in his blog "On Guns, Obama Shoots Blanks", attacks the president's plans for background checks. His main claim is that there is a hidden motive behind them. His evidence is a follows: His plans only clarify the meaning of existing laws instead of changing them, his plan would have not prevented the previous shootings, and Obama's true reason is to rally support for the election (Roff). While he brings up main supporting points and even cites his sources within the blog, his argument have many assumptions within themselves that are not true or, at the very least, could be debated.

One assumption is that Obama is trying to enact something that could have stop the past shooting. While this is true, Obama makes it very clear in his speech on January 5th, 2016 that his plans for background checks are focused on stopping violence that could happen in the future instead of focusing on the past when making this plan (UpTakeVideo). It also assumes that background checks do nothing to stop gun violence in this country. This is blatantly false. As previously stated, since 1994 two million felons have been turn away by gun dealers due to background checks being implemented (Berlow).

Another assumption in his argument is that Obama is against the second amendment. Unfortunately for Roff, Obama debunks this idea within the same speech Roff is responding to with his blog. "I believe in the second amendment ... it guarantees the right to bear arms ... but I also believe we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the second amendment" (UpTakeVideo).

One major assumption Roff uses is that before Obama's speech people that vote on this issue already own gun, and, therefore, those people would vote against background checks. This is a false notion. In 2012, eighty-seven percent of people supported background checks for all gun purchases. After the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that number rose to ninety-two percent (Berlow). In April 2013, a bill requiring background checks was going to be passed that had ninety percent of the people supporting it, until the N.R.A. prevented it from passing (Berlow). Roff being incorrect here is very significant, as it shows what Obama's true reason for giving his speech. It wasn't to raise support for election, but to start a change that will make us a safer nation.

In the end his arguments are full of false assumptions that prevent his argument from holding merit. That isn't surprising though, there is a lot of bias to be found when reading through his argument. One great example of this is when he refers to people that talk about common-sense gun control as people who "are simply not to be trusted." (Roff).


In Wolverton II's article, he says that Obama's plan is unpopular with the people. He also states that Obama's plan will not reduce the number of mass shootings and are not needed (Wolverton II). 

The first thing Wolverton II mentions is that Obama plans to take away guns from the people; however, this point, be it an assumption or his main argument, is not true. Never is Obama's speech in January 5th, 2016 (the speech Wolverton II is responding to), does he mention taking away guns from the people as a part of his plan, and he does mention that he has no intent of doing so (UpTakeVideo).

There are similar assumptions in this argument as the assumptions in Roff's arguments. Like Roff, Wolverton II assumes that background checks do little to stop gun violence and Obama is against the second amendment and, again like Roff, Wolverton II is wrong to make these assumptions.

Wolverton II assumes that the people don't want background checks to be required in purchasing guns. While both President Obama and Berlow Alan show that this assumption is false, the assumption is harder to debunk due to Wolvertion II providing evidence to support that claim. He cites a survey of one thousand likely voters that says half of the surveyed people do not think the United States needs stricter gun control (Wolverton II).

While this evidence can be used to argue Wolverton II's point, it is debatable if the survey is worth mentioning. The survey's sample size was small and Wolverton II's never bothered to explain where the survey got its sample from. It is possible this survey was ran by asking people in a certain area of the country that would be more like to be against gun control, as oppose to a survey that ask people from every part of the country to help get a better census. If that was the case, then the result would probably have been something more in line with what Obama stated in his speech.


The biggest reason why this is important is simple. The more time we spend not requiring background check for gun to be purchased, the more people will die because we don't require background check for gun to be purchased.

In 2015, there were 372 mass shooting that killed 475 people and wounded 1,870. In addition, there were 64 school shootings. Overall, there were about 13,286 people killed by a fire arm and 26,819 more injured in the US in 2015 ("Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence"). That doesn't include suicides, which President Obama clarifies are responsible for two in three gun deaths (UpTakeVideo).

Compared to the rest of the world we are terrible. In 2012, sixty percent of our murders we were done by fire arm. For Canada, it was thirty-one percent and for the UK it was ten percent 2015 ("Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence"). It is shameful that as the most technologically advanced country in the world we have this huge issue of gun violence that no other first world country shares.


I have grown up around and been raised by people that would consider themselves gun rights activist, and my early views of the topic was molded by them. As I grew older though, I became more aware of the all the statistics behind gun violence and realized the issue wasn't as clear cut as my family made it seem. After doing my own independent research, I came to find most of their points were not as valid as I once thought.

Probably the best example if this is the idea that the second amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun; however, I learned the more you look into the second amendment, the more unclear it becomes rather or not it was mean to protect the people's rights or the state's rights. 

"While the Second Amendment was under consideration, some commentators referred to it as an individual right to be exercised outside of a militia, and after it was adopted, other writers also referred to it as protecting more than a militia-based right. But the original evidence for the individual rights view was fairly thin, since the right was seldom put at issue." (LINDGREN).

My values, and the values and rights of everyone in this country are effected by how we approach government evolvement in gun safety. More personally speaking, I don't think that any random person should be able to buy an assault weapon. If that person has a criminal record, and is more likely to hurt someone or themselves with it, then it seems unethical that anyone would give that person a fire arm. 

And while people die an untimely death from gun violence, the N.R.A. pull every punch to prevent that background checks be enacted country wide. An organization that says it wants to help the people is actively trying to prevent measurement that will save life, while passing laws that help illegal gun activity to occur (Berlow).

Over all, the best thing that could be done right now is to make background checks required country wide for any gun purchase. Rather it be from a gun store or a gun show or even a yard sale, background checks should be required for such a purchase to take place.

If you have read through all my point and agree with what I have to say, then there is a way we can make this happen. The best way is to use our ballots in the upcoming election to vote out people against bills such as the bill that would have required background checks that didn't pass in April 2013, and to vote in people that will pass those laws. If the people speak on this matter using their ballots, then the will of the ninety percent of people who agree with me will be spoken, and we will see a brighter future.

