Since the United States gained independence in 1779, the government has been constructing, revising, and deleting laws for all citizens to abide by. One of the areas of law that has been an issue in our country for decades and decades are firearms. Since the Second Amendment was established in 1791, there has always been debates on how much free reign people actually have with their guns. In 2015, about 32,000 Americans died from gun related violence; this comes out to about eighty-eight per day (Johnson 1). According to the National Review, the United States has a higher homicide rate and civilian gun ownership rate than most other developed countries (Verbruggen). I believe that if we have more restrictions and laws pertaining to gun control we can make our country a safer place. Studies show that Americans are actually becoming more comfortable with laws like open carry and this is the opposite of what should be happening. Americans are accepting the idea of another citizen like themselves carrying a gun in public as perfectly normal.  

Almost all mass killings of four or more victims since 1950 have taken place in gun-free zones (Lindgren 1). Recently our country has been faced with the issue of gun control laws with major shootings such as the murder of nine people gathering in a church in Charleston, South Carolina. I must admit that gun control laws may not have prevented this event from taking place, but introducing more gun control laws may be the best way to try to prevent something like this from happening again. 

One of the first issues of gun control laws is what exactly the Second Amendment does and does not allow. The second amendment says, "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 (Vernick)." The problem is that people feel like if we add gun control laws we would have to neglect the second amendment. Some politicians believe we could add gun control laws without changing the amendment and I agree with them. The second amendment does not defend open carry. The second amendment only gives you the right to own firearms. There isn't a direct problem with owning guns, but everyone should not be allowed to do so. People should still be able to own guns as long as they obtain required certifications. Recent Supreme Court cases also bring questions about the true meaning of the second amendment. Sometimes people use the second amendment to advocate themselves in their court case, but it is unclear to some people in the audience why the amendment isn't used in all cases. One relatively recent case was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Heller owned a gun and at the time there was a law in Washington D.C. that said citizens were not supposed to own handguns even if they were keeping it in their home (Vernick). When the case was over the court had decided that the second amendment gave Heller the right to bear arms in his home and they invalidated the current law in Washington D.C. (Vernick). This case is an example of why people are not quite sure if the second amendment is referring to carry guns in public or keeping them stowed away at home. Heller was not trying to openly carry his handgun, therefore the second amendment gave him the right to continue owning his firearm. In another recent Supreme Court case, McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the court made it clear that the second amendment does apply to local and state laws (Vernick). With that being said we can concur that the second amendment assures that citizens in the United States are all allowed to own firearms, as long as they keep them inside. This is where the issue of the dangers of guns in America begins. 

There has also been questions about the rights of people who have mental disorders and illness. Jane Hickey from the Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy at the University of Virginia said, "Most people would agree that the most effective way to prevent violence by people with mental illness is to provide better screening and access to effective treatment for mental illness, especially for children and adolescents (Hickey 1)." But even with all the treatment, is it really in America's best interest to allow mentally ill citizens open carry? Most citizens agree that guns should be taken away from mentally ill people, but they cannot find common ground on how this can be done without violating their rights because they have not technically done anything violent (Hickey). Although ninety-six percent of the crimes that involve firearms are committed by people with no history of mental illness (Hickey 2), I still believe people who are mentally ill should have some form of restrictions on carrying guns. Because of the Second Amendment we cannot tell them they can't own a gun, but someone with a mental illness should definitely be denied the right to open carry. Although some mental illnesses do not commonly affect a person's likelihood of violence, there are a few such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia that may have an effect on a person's risk of being harmful to others (Hickey). The misdemeanor charges that make someone considered dangerous and having any mental illness should both make someone ineligible to own a gun in America.

Just because Americans reach a certain age and gain a license to own a gun does not mean they plan on keeping it inside their house. Currently, there are forty-four states that have open carry laws (TheLipTV). Of those forty four states, only a low thirteen require people to have a special permit or license to open carry (TheLipTV). This means that there are thirty one states that allow open carry and do not require any certification. Some citizens find it completely unnecessary for Americans to carry guns in public, especially if you aren't going to fire it. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired (Baumgarten 1).  The thought of people simply obtaining a license to own guns and carrying them around freely doesn't even sound safe. If we are going to make America a safer place, we should either get rid of open carry, or require special permits in every state that allows open carry. In 2015, nine states passed gun control laws preventing domestic abusers from legally purchasing firearms (Johnson). One politician who has made an effort to change more laws referring to gun ownership is presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. Clinton has told her supporters that she plans to expand the list of misdemeanor charges that would make someone ineligible to own a gun (Verbruggen). Some of the misdemeanors she plans to add to the list would be domestic violence and stalking (Verbruggen). These two misdemeanors are probably a lot more common than most people think. Clinton seems to also believe we need to make America a safer place to live and I can see that she is putting forth an effort to do so. People who have already shown us that they are dangerous should not be able to own something that has the potential to make them even more dangerous. 

One state that has been taking a lot of recent actions referring to gun control is Texas. Texas gun laws allow concealed handguns to be legally carried with a Concealed Handgun License, CHL, issued by Texas or by a state that Texas recognizes, but only upon the request of a police officer (University of Texas at Tyler). To receive your Concealed Handgun License you must meet numerous requirements such as: at least 21 years of age, no criminal history, have sound mind, be chemically dependent, not be delinquent with paying bills, not be under protective order, complete the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and complete required training (University of Texas at Tyler). With all these requirements at hand you can tell that Texas government officials have seen the recent violent attacks in America and acted in response to them. People of Texas and other people studying the topic seem to believe that if other states followed after Texas they would find themselves better off. I also believe other states need to follow after the rules Texas and other states abide by. There could be more restrictions, but the requirements listed above are actually stricter than most states.

With gun related crimes and mass shootings being seen throughout the news in the past five years we have found that a number of parents have taken action as well. Studies from Clinical Pediatrics show that parents are expressive how they feel about their children playing with toy guns. About 3.2 million non-powdered guns are sold in a year and these toy guns are responsible for about 32,000 injuries per year (Damore, Ramundo). Parents have been buying these toy guns for years and sales and injuries are only increasing. Some parents believe that by not buying their child a toy gun will be less likely to commit a violent crime with a gun. The survey ran by four doctors, Dorothy Damore, Maria Ramundo, Joseph Hanna and Peter Dayan shows that parents that no longer approved of non-powdered guns were most likely the parents whose child suffered an injury from the gun. After these injuries, not only does the parent see the danger in these toy guns, but the child will remember this injury as well. The idea is that even toy guns provoke violence. Some parents have seen the violence of toy guns at first hand and no longer approve. As Americans, we have seen the violence caused by actual gun related crimes yet some Americans still approve of the current gun laws.

I got the chance to read a testimony from a parent of an elementary schoolgirl in Belmont, Massachusetts. Mary Granfield, a well-known writer for Self, Women's Day and People, wrote an article for Parents.com telling readers about a community event that shocked many. "In our town, guns never appeared to be an issue until my daughter's fourth-grade classmate was shot," said Granfield. Granfield tells us about how a nine-year old and his friend discovered a gun one day that his uncle had owned. Not only was the gun unlicensed, but it was left with ammunition in it and was kept in an unlocked briefcase. The young boys found the gun and became curious. In the end, one of the boys accidently fired a shot that hit the other boy in the arm. Something like this could have easily been prevented had the owner of the gun been more responsible. The gun should not have been in his possession in the first place. This sort of event seemed foreign to Granfield, but another parent in Belmont seemed much more familiar with it. She said she was from an area where hunting was popular and they had gun accidents annually. Sometimes the crime rate may decrease in some areas that have more guns than average, but that does not mean less people get injured in gun related accidents.

Throughout my research on the reasons why we need more gun control laws I have seen a general trend. Most studies seem to show, "less guns, less homicide." 

After giving the opposing side some consideration I found that some people believe that if we increase the number of guns owned by citizens we will have less crime.  In a couple interviews with some prisoners in 10 different state correctional systems, fifty six percent claimed that they would not attack a potential victim who was probably armed (Lott). The idea is that if more people in America own guns, more people will be afraid to commit these violent crimes. For example, the United States, with fewer gun restrictions than Canada and Britain, has a, "hot burglary," rate of only thirteen percent compared to nearly fifty percent in Canada and Britain (Lott). Although a situation like this may seem to make attackers afraid to commit crime, I feel like there could be another reason why our hot burglary rate is lower. It is true that people are less likely to break in your home while you are home in America, but that may be because of another factor. Several homes have an alarm system, maybe a dog, or maybe even a neighborhood watch team that will alert people. American felons reveal in surveys that they are much more worried about armed victims than about running into police (Lott). This does not mean that our country would be safer with more guns. This only means that the felons realize that a victim will shoot them in self-defense, while an officer will only fire at you if you do not comply with his commands. John Lott also makes a point that some areas that have more than the average civilian owned guns have lower than average crime rates. Although this may be true, I don't think the two necessarily correlate. For instance, there could be an area where animal hunting is very popular. If that is the case, a lot of people probably do own guns in that area. This means they have a license to own guns and are probably only going to use their weapons for hunting purposes. The gun owners in this area act responsibly. There is no definite reason as to why the crime rate is lower in certain cities. If we are going to compare crime rates we should compare the crime rate from different states because the laws may vary, which will give us a reason to expect a different result.

In conclusion, we see that gun related crimes have been causing issues in America for years, but we have only made little progress on reducing the number of gun related crimes. I think we need to create a system with more gun restrictions and make it a nationwide law so that the rules no longer vary from state to state. We cannot get rid of guns completely because that would be nearly impossible. To completely get rid of guns, first we would have to ratify the second amendment (ReasonTV). Next, we would have to pass a law to ban all guns and finally, we would have enforce the law and confiscate all guns owned by civilians in America (ReasonTV). Far too much work for someone to do in a timely manner. We need to do everything possible to keep ourselves safe and education the citizens of America about the dangers of guns. As citizens of one of the most dangerous countries in the world we must face the fact that guns will always be a part of our country, our culture, and way of reputation. Everyone is not responsible enough to possess a gun and everyone should not be able to. The time for change has come and I think every American should join the battle and make our country safe.

