Gun control has become an increasingly controversial topic over many years, and a solution that appeases everyone seems impossible to be put into effect. Some of these proposals include finger print sensors on the triggers of guns, complete prohibition of guns, and choosing who should possess guns, but none of these proposals can fix the problem, that is gun violence. The problem cannot be completely eliminated because people will continue to get their guns illegally, if they are not permitted to get them legally. Most Americans believe they are entitled to having gun ownership based on the 2nd amendment, so it's difficult for the government to make a change. Taya Kyle, wife of deceased navy seal Chris Kyle, said "[Americans] fears, though, have gone up, because of the high-profile incidents of mass killings of people caught unaware"(Kyle). Her point is that people feel like they need gun ownership to defend themselves from mentally ill people, who use guns for violence. That is why Americans believe their freedom is being deprived if the government takes their legally owned guns away. She makes it apparent that because of these high-profile mass killings, people aren't going to give up their guns, so there must be fair action made that accommodates for everyone is happiness. Also, the fact that she is the wife of a deceased navy seal, that could have an impact on her stand on having a gun for protection. Furthermore, I believe that there should be a series of changes that include harsher punishments when someone uses a gun to commit a crime, new technology that does not allow just anyone to use a gun, and limit who can have ownership of a gun. The point of this paper is to support why guns should be limited, and not completely prohibited using examples of human thought processes, gun control proposals that have failed and how they can be improved, and other people's opinions on how gun control should be handled.

The government has brought up the proposal of complete prohibition of guns, and it is complete ludicrous in the eyes of many. The problem with complete prohibition is that it leaves no room for compromise, and stands little chance in being passed because the anti-gun control groups and organizations are so well funded. According to Taya Kyle and David Hardy, an Arizona attorney and 2nd Amendment scholar and writer, guns are needed for protection, and without that protection people are left defenseless from people, who lack common sense and respect for others like the people involved in the Sandy Hook shootings.

"In the wake of its defeat many asked why gun owners and their organizations resisted so limited a measure. Granted, it would have had little but symbolic benefit. Its core was to require background checks at gun shows (which Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded involved a whole 0.8 percent of crime guns) and on Internet gun sales (a miniscule proportion, most of which probably go through licensed dealers anyway). But why not accept something so modest, in light of the draconian ideas then being floated as alternatives? Understanding the rejection requires understanding gun owners' shared experiences. Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something." (Hardy)

The point of this quote is to explain that compromise between gun owners and the law makers is essential. People love the security a gun brings them, and they believe it is their right, but some people do not have the mind stability to own a gun. 

On the other hand, the Sandy Hook shooting is a prime example of how violent and mentally unstable some people can be, and shows why certain people should not have gun ownership. The book Guns by Stephen King, elaborates on the situation, gun violence in America, and what can and should be done to solve this problem. King says in his book that "Even if I were politically and philosophically open to repealing the Second Amendment (I'm not), I don't believe that repeal, or even modification, would solve the problem of gun violence in America, particularly violence of the sort that's at the root of that problem. Although I need to add that I also believe strict gun control would save thousands of lives"(King). Stephen King is making the point that taking away guns, and placing limits isn't the key to solving the problem of gun violence; we must put restrictions in place that make it harder for someone, who is looking to go on a shooting spree in a public area causing harm to others, which I agree with entirely. 

The best way to assess the situations is to limit who has the right to own a gun, and limit violence in the media and everyday routines. The process should include those who wish to own a weapon have to pass a series of situational tests in a simulator to really get a good sense of someone's thought process with a gun. This way those people who are not mentally stable enough to own a gun will not pass or be able to purchase one legally. If they manage to get their gun illegally, and cause problems, the punishment should obviously be more severe because the government stopped them from getting a gun to prevent them from getting into trouble with a gun. According to the Numbeo.com, the crime index report in the most recent year, the United States is in the middle with a crime index that is slightly larger than its safety index. I would like to live in a country that has a greater safety index than crime index, and with limited gun ownership it will contribute to less crime.

Gun technology is another proposal that has much potential. Innovations such as finger print sensors could play a big role in decreasing the amounts of accidental or unintentional firings. For example, there have been more accounts of minors getting a hold of their parent or guardians firearms, and harming someone else or themselves. Of course children do not have the mind capacity or knowledge in most cases to understand the dangers of guns, so they cannot really be completely blamed for causing harm. Even if the child does know what is going on, and end up hurting someone, it is still difficult to place them all the way at fault. Also, those guns can have location services that don't allow shooting in public areas as well to prevent mass killings in malls, schools, and churches.

In addition to gun technology, teachers are trying to teach kids early in life about consequences to help them with making better decision with hopes of prevent situations like them doing something wrong because they understand there comes consequences causing them to reconsider their wrong doings in the present and the future. According to a study at Kansas University, "if a student cuts in front of another student in line, the natural consequence may be that the other child won't play with the 'cutter' at recess. A teacher did not plan or control this consequence, but he or she may discuss and help students predict natural consequences to encourage them to see the connection between their choices and what happens to them" (KU). This is just an example in everyday childhood actions that require discipline, and by the kids experience of being disciplined they will learn from it, and use those acquired techniques to avoid trouble.

Relating back to the Sandy Hook shooting; it is a great example of a situation that could have been prevented because if that person would have had to go through vigorous tests they probably wouldn't have been allowed to own a gun, finger print sensors on guns wouldn't have allowed that man to fire the gun, and location services would have stopped the gun from being fired in that school. 

New Jersey made a plan to try to get funding for the development of smart guns, and they have yet to be promoted across the United States.

"New Jersey's law, signed in 2002 by then-Gov. James E. McGreevey, said the state's smart gun requirements would kick in within three years of when it became available for sale in the United States. Because the technology did not exist then, the law required the attorney general to determine when it became available for sale and produce progress reports to the state Legislature every six months. Such a gun has now been manufactured by the German company Armatix. It was shipped to gun dealers in California and Maryland, but gun rights activists convinced those dealers not to sell them for fear of triggering the New Jersey law  --  the only one of its kind in the nation" (NJ Law). 

New Jersey has the idea of gun technology in the United States, and it has potential because there is already being work done in Germany.  Gun technology could be enhanced, and help with a solution for gun violence, if the right approach is taken with laws around it.

Another problem that could be prevented with gun technology is firings based on emotions. Consider the scenario; a person is in a confrontation, and they have access to a firearm. The situation becomes tense, and the person with the gun becomes raged with anger, pulling the gun on that other person. With the innovative technology of a mood sensor, it will read that person's mood, and force that person to pull the trigger on their gun multiple times before it fires. By forcing them to pull their trigger numerous times, it will give them time to reconsider their decision of harming that other human being. Also the mood sensor could detect depression as a precaution, which is another main cause of why a person feels like they should harm someone else or themselves. This will help with the problem with murder, and also help with suicide because the person will again have time to reconsider their decision, and hopefully make the better decision. 

With all of those problems that could be prevented in mind, "Ninety percent of Americans agree we've got to do something about gun culture. It's a cultural shift, just like we've done with the tobacco industry and drunk driving. Any time you begin to start changing these cultures, the policy changes come right on the heels" (Funding). This quote gives evidence that the government can make a change to generate a country out of the United States that is a safer place to live. Also, by funding for gun innovations, and paying scientist and engineers gun technology could be produced in the near future.

The severity of punishment is not always taken as serious as it should be at times. For example, someone could make a false claim that they harmed someone else with a gun to defend themselves, and get away with murdering that person because it was an act of self-defense. In addition to the topic of self-defense claims, the murder of Trayvon Martin is sensitive, yet a great real world example. Police officer, George Zimmerman, claimed to be defending himself from Trayvon Martin attacking him. "Zimmerman is released on bail at 12:05 AM. Later in the day, Zimmerman enters a written not guilty plea and waves his right to appear at his arraignment" (CNN). This statement supports that people are able to claim self-defense, plead guilty, or be released on bail even after murder. There was not anyone else with video evidence to show how the scene actually played out, so it was the Officer Zimmerman's word by itself. Martin was murdered, so his side of the story was not in effect when the hearing took place. Of course there are devices like lie detectors, and examination by professionals that could diagnose what really happened, but who is to say that extreme measures were not really taken? Who actually knows if there wasn't any biased or prejudiced opinions that could have effected how the punishment was settled? It is completely unknown for a fact because everyone has a mind of their own that no one, but that person, knows what is really going on inside. Relating back to gun technology though; if it was in place in this situation there would be more justification, more proof of emotions and drive, and how many times the trigger was pulled to help with how the punishment should be handled. It would just take the integrity of the people evaluating the situation to use those evidence effectively. 

That is just an example of a situation where the punishment might not have been taken serious, or wasn't able to be completely supported because there simply wasn't enough proof. The problem is that if people begin to believe they can just claim a murder as an act of self-defense to get off, these claims will continue to be made because of lack of evidence. The point in all of that is to explain why some situations aren't always handled correctly, and how that problem could potentially be cut down. With more justification and evidence, more punishment could be applied, where it is necessary. 

An exaggerated, but realistic death penalty could have an effect on a person's decision making because it's evident that not many people will harm someone else out of anger or depression knowing that case studies will have the materials to appoint a death penalty, taking their life away as well. It only makes sense that this will help the problem of murder because there will be a little less room for excuses such as self-defense for murder. Also, a death penalty after proof of brutal murder will possibly have a tear on someone's decision making, along with all the other technological installments.

Each of these elaborated solutions that I have proposed could work by themselves, but for ultimate results, it would be best to have them work hand in hand to help with the overall problem, which is gun violence. The reason is because they have a positive ripple effect on each other leading up to the most change. First, controlling who can legally own a firearm keeps it out of the hands of mentally ill people, legally. This will clear the government from being completely blamed because there will be more intense measures involved with acquiring a gun, not allowing the mentally ill to pass. Second, to get more deeply into accessing the problem, gun technology could further not only who has legal access to a gun, but also who is capable of putting one to use. With finger print sensors, required multiple trigger pulls to fire, and mood sensors, hearings will have more evidence when situations involving a gun take place. Finally, with harsher punishments in place, after evidence have been collected and combined, it will have an effect on a person's mindset and thought process, and possibly make them reconsider their decision of harming someone else when they know they will be found guilty. 

This essay is designated to present the problem of gun control and its different aspects, and use logic and knowledge to come up with solutions. By supporting each of the solutions with real world examples, situations, and logical responses, I am able to create my stand and feel more credible and confident on my opinions as to how the problem can be limited and eventually resolved. 

