 The United States of America suffers from the tragic effects of gun violence every year. Between 2001 and 2013 alone a total of 404,496 human beings, on American soil, have had their lives cut short due to firearms. To put this into perspective, 3,380 deaths have occurred on American soil due to terrorism in the same time frame (Sanchez). These numbers considered, it is perplexing as to why the United States does so little to prevent firearm deaths, especially when it takes drastic measures to entirely counter causes of death responsible for less casualties. The fact of the matter is that gun violence is a leading cause of death in the United States and yet there are political leaders and common US citizens who not only neglect this issue, but also believe that MORE firearms should be introduced into American society. Increasing gun control via legislation should no longer be framed as a debate diluted by political interests and private-interest lobbies. When Americans die for no reason  --  that is an extremely pressing problem. When America has an extremely pressing problem, it is the job of citizens and elected officials alike to create a solution. The notion that there is no way to deter gun violence without sacrificing greater American interests is a myth perpetuated by influential groups with ulterior selfish motives. Our country needs to come together to solve the problem of rampant gun violence in America so we can make our country a safer and more secure nation for all those who inhabit it.

The first place to start when it comes to dispelling the illusion that excessive gun violence cannot be remedied without overwhelming consequences is with the chief argument against gun control  --  the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads verbatim "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (US Const., Amen. II). The United States Constitution is the authority on United States laws and policies, and no one in favor of gun control denies this nor do they seek to flat out overrule the second amendment. However, insistent advocates against gun control also must not rely on the false premise that the Constitution and its amendments cannot be reinterpreted in a modern context. The Second Amendment is, after all, an amendment to the Constitution. This makes it redundant to claim that something that is in itself an amendment should be immune to further interpretation and amendment. Let us not forget that the same Constitution at various points in time included clauses enabling slavery, denial of women's suffrage and a total prohibition of alcohol. All of these facets of the Constitutions were later found to be not in accordance with American values and have since been rightfully amended. Thus there is zero validity to the claim made by many politicians and private-interest lobbies that implementing common-sense gun regulations sacrifices the integrity of the US Constitution and the citizen's rights that it was drafted to uphold. Furthermore, one must not neglect to consider that the operable definition of the "Arms" that Americans were granted the right to bear has drastically changed, as has the nation of the United States itself. 

In the year of 1791, when the second amendment was enacted, the most advanced assault rifles available possessed nowhere near the same lethal potential as modern day weapons. There was no such thing as a semi-automatic weapon or a firearm that could be loaded automatically from a clip. The muskets that were available circa 1791 were manually loaded with gunpowder and a single (less technologically advanced) bullet per each shot. The modern day massacres that are executed with semi-automatic assault rifles would not have been possible in 1791. In addition to firearms carrying immensely less destructive potential in 1791, the United States population was only 3.9 million  --  roughly 1% of the current population (Blodget). The social culture of the United States at the time the Second Amendment was enacted was also drastically different. States did not have heavy presences of well-trained police officers with state of the art communication and defense technology to keep citizens safe. Even the threats that citizens may have had to defend themselves from were entirely different. Native American tribes with hostile attitudes toward American settlers were still numerous and occasionally carried out assaults against Americans (Blodget). Also worth noting is that the United States had only just recently engaged in an armed conflict with the British where local citizens were defending the land they sought to make their own against who they saw as foreign invaders. This war was fought almost exclusively via locally assembled militias engaging in shootouts with their enemies from close proximity to defend their nation's land. Nowadays countries have nuclear arsenals, chemical weaponry and technological tactics that they utilize when wars occur. Aside from man on man combat being somewhat of an irrelevant modern factor, many American's still-hunted for food in 1791. This hunting of course did require basic firearms (Blodget). In essence, the second amendment was drafted in 1791 based upon a set of premises that are irrelevant to modern United States society. The idea that the United States should not modernize its archaic firearm policy is willfully ignorant to these facts.  

Due to the fact that some American's still hold the opinion that our firearm policy does not need to be modernized via increased regulations, it is important to look at the negative impact that not doing so has on American society. Unfortunately for American citizens, there are countless statistics to demonstrate this negative impact. A low estimate, according to data from the National Violent Death Reporting System, shows that between 2006 and 2012 there have been 180 mass killings via firearms. In the year 2012, 69% of all homicides were via firearm (Fan). Although other factors aside from just the availability of firearms do contribute to homicide, there is no denying that easily obtainable firearms enable cold-blooded murder. The majority of Americans evidently realize this, being that a majority of American citizens support the ban of semi and fully automatic assault weapons (Abrams). For those in the minority that still do not support increased gun control regulations, perhaps differences of culture can explain the difference of opinion. Unemployment rates, urbanization of communities, alcohol abuse and being of minority ethnicity are all factors that positively correlate with susceptibility to gun-violence (Bae, Muen, Safranski, Scott, Kwon). These factors often occur alongside one another to create a dangerous culture of violence within inner-city ghettos that have limited economic opportunity. Perhaps America's privileged political and economic elite, that has disproportionate influence on United States policy, has skewed perceptions of just how great the impact of gun violence on American cities actually is. However, when the number of reported injuries via firearm (33,636 in 2013) is greater than the number of fatalities caused by other leading causes of death such as Leukemia, Alcohol, Parkinson's Disease and Hypertension  --  elected officials must acknowledge that firearms are ravaging American communities (Sanchez). There is no honorable reason for America's elected officials to further neglect the issue of rampant gun violence in the nation's communities. American citizens trust their elected leaders to safeguard the interests and values of the common American and by ignoring the statistical evidence that widespread firearm violence is a hazard to Americans, democratic leaders are not doing their job. Every American has the right to live  --  guaranteed by the constitution that elected leaders are chosen to uphold  --  and that right was tragically jeopardized for 33,636 Americans in 2013 alone (Sanchez). It is time American policy makers increase firearm regulations and protect the lives of their constituents.

Despite the highly visible damage that easily accessible lethal weapons have inflicted on American society, progress toward creating a safer America through gun control has been unscrupulously hampered. This purposeful obstruction and sabotage of gun control legislation is for a number of reasons, none of which benefit the common American citizen. After the Newton Massacre, that led to the deaths of handfuls of young children in Newton, CT, it was found that 90% of US citizens were in favor of increasing background checks conducted on prospective gun owners. Incredibly, Congress boldly betrayed the values of their constituents and declined to pass legislation that would require expanded background checks. This can be largely attributed to the influence of the gun lobby and their massive political influence that undoubtedly stems from their massive capital. The NRA alone has over 5 million members, all of which must pay a fee to become members ("Why the Gun Lobby is Winning). According to NRA website's homepage the current price for one year worth of membership is $25. There is a small discount for multi-year membership so even if every NRA member paid the most cost-effective option of $100 for five years of membership  --  the NRA would earn $500,000,000 off of membership fees alone in those five years. That's a whopping $100,000,000 per year even if membership fees were their only source of revenue. $100,000,000 a year provides the NRA with an immense amount of capital to use as political bargaining chips to ensure members of congress consider their interests above those of common citizens. This is just one example of the unnecessary wealth and power of the gun lobby. Perhaps this explains why even after President Obama instructed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence they declined to. Why did they decline this direct order from the most powerful man in America? Because Congress explicitly stated, in a CDC appropriations bill, that the CDC was strictly barred from using a single dollar toward gun-violence research (Gostin). This is just one of many examples of how Congress has deprived the government of progress toward deterring gun violence. In another example, legislation crafted in Congress effectively denied law enforcement of all information pertaining to which type of people have purchased which type of weapons (Gostin). The implications of Congress' neglect of America's gun violence problem are dire. With the current legislations that are in place, an affiliated group of people could each purchase an extremely lethal weapon on the same day and nobody would be able to know - even if they were all on a suspected terrorist list. If the day after the purchases law enforcement should realize that the group of men are under the influence of an abroad terrorist organization  --  they would be blind to the fact that said group of people all suspiciously bought lethal weapons in a short time frame. In a worst-case scenario, these men could carry out a massive terrorist attack a week later in a highly populated area with the assault weapons that they all purchased completely legally and law enforcement would be 100% blind to it until after it occurred. This disturbing possibility begs the question  --  why would any well-intended citizen care if the government knows what weapons they possess if they don't have illegal intentions? Especially if the side effect is that suspected terrorists could freely access weapons that carry the potential to harm masses of people in mere seconds. 

As already stated, an overwhelming majority of Americans support increased gun control regulations. It is imperative that Congress begins doing their actual job and begins to represent the upstanding citizens that elected them in good faith. America wants increased gun control. America needs increased gun control. Yet still, Congress has prevented authorities from even scratching the surface on gun violence research, leaving them unable to begin to address a problem that kills more Americans per year than leukemia. This is not democratic and it is not in accordance with American values. It is shamelessly unjust and purely detrimental to American citizens that the government dedicated to protecting them cannot even look into a problem that endangers them. 

No one can plausibly deny that gun violence kills tens of thousands of Americans a year  --  that much is fact. This fact alone demonstrates the need for increased research and legislation pertaining to gun control. Some may not necessarily agree to what lengths the US Government should go to so as to prevent unneeded gun violence - but that is okay. It is natural in a democratic nation to have disagreements over the discrepancies in legislations that are meant to wholly benefit the citizens of a nation. However, when there is a clear and present danger to the American people and 90% of them believe it needs to be further addressed, that means that action must be taken. At the very least, inaction must not be willfully perpetuated so as to serve the purpose of a slim group of powerful organizations and stakeholders. Gun violence is a problem that directly results in the tragic deaths of innocent civilians. Our government must listen to and represent the interests of the people that it was formed exclusively to represent. Increased gun violence research must be conducted and preventative legislation must be imposed. 

