In America, there exists a battle of how the country should handle the use and ownership of guns in order to keep the people safe and happy. However, this issue has many different stances that are described in the journal titled "Gun Control" by Hugh LaFollette. LaFollette explains that there are two separate scales that show first, what degree of abolition, and second, the level of restriction that a person wants in regard to guns. The degree of abolition scale has on the far left absolute abolition, while the far right has no abolition, with the middle including those who have a moderate abolition stance. The second scale, the scale of restriction, involves on the far left side absolute restrictions with the middle and far right being moderate and no restrictions respectively. Any combination of the two scales stances results in a description of the final stance that a person has on the topic. For example, a person can have a stance that supports no abolition, but prefers moderate restrictions on guns. There are so many different combinations that the topic becomes complex and complicated and almost impossible for the government to pass a law that pleases the majority. With such a complex range of stances on this topic, it leads people to question, what can the government actually do to combat the problem? 

To answer this question, radical conservatives in government introduces an idea that there should be no regulation or restrictions on guns claiming that any change made will not be enough to impact the nation. This conflicts directly with the radical liberal ideology of absolute abolition and regulation causing a revolution bringing us closer to Europe's "no-gun" policy. Every day the question of what the government should do about guns is asked and very little legislation has been actually passed. However, discussion on the topic of guns in America has been growing in the recent years as a result of national attention towards gun-related tragedies. Events such as the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, which resulted in 20 students and 6 adults, have led many to question the laws and rights based around the purchasing and owning of weapons. Constitutionally, the right to own guns is given as a result of the second amendment, which states that "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." The interpretation of this amendment is the driving force behind the argument for individual ownership of guns (Krasinicka 3). On top of the already complex topic, the interpretation of the amendment is debated as many radical conservatives believe that any regulation or abolition is a direct infringement of the amendment, while the radical liberals believe that it is constitutional to abolish guns for private parties and keep weapons only in the military and law enforcement.

There are so many arguments and beliefs on this topic that it makes it hard for gun control in America to work at all. However, there are solutions that can be made that do not break the constitutional rights and provide safety to America. The solution that will be discussed in this essay relies on legislation being passed that is constitutional and does not abolish guns or restrict guns in anyway. The first piece of legislation that would need to be passed would not restrict the use of guns, but rather force every transaction involving guns to be done with the same federal background checks that would be done if the gun were purchased from a licensed retailer, including the registration of the gun. This idea will be labelled as Part A for the purpose of this essay. Beyond that, there also would need to be a system created that makes a gun owner responsible for any crimes or accidents that may occur with the gun, regardless of who is in direct possession. This system of responsibility will be referred to as Part B. If both parts of the solution would pass through Congress, then the number of people who own guns would decrease and the handling and care of guns would increase, resulting in more responsible gun ownership and public safety in America. 

To help understand the solution, this essay will explain how the plan operates in the scheme of our nation. Part A and Part B together create this plan that helps the nation not only feel safer, but actually become safer. With Part A, the safety is created through the federal background checks for all purchases of guns including the purchases of used guns. There also should be a public database created that documents everyone who owns guns and what type guns they own with the serial number included. This would allow for everyone to know who owns a gun in America creating a website for people to use for the purposes of safety and comfort. This database should not be used by the government to take weapons away but only for the purpose of knowledge. No tracking devices should be used to locate the gun for private or public use. 

Part B elaborates on Part A by using this database and such as a means to making the gun owner responsible for whatever happens to the gun. For example, if a gun owner leaves a weapon out and someone steals it and uses it for a crime, the owner would be charged with negligence and would be responsible for the damages to the victim. This may seem a little harsh for something being stolen, but guns are tools that are known to be often used for murder and if the gun owner is responsible enough, the gun should not be stolen initially. If the owner is not responsible enough to understand the power of the gun, they should be penalized, but the weapon should not be confiscated away as a result, unless the crime is done by the owner. This means that unless the owner uses the gun to murder or hurt others while it is registered under their name, they are held responsible only to the charge and the gun is confiscated.

Although the plan does many things right, there still exists arguments against this plan. The argument against this plan is most commonly the dislike against such government involvement and the fear that it will ultimately lead for the government to abolish guns in America. It is understandable to fear the government as with extreme power, the government can seriously control every aspect of civilian life. However, this plan does not include any government involvement besides that of the production and maintenance of the database, the federal background requirements, and the legal aspect regarding how the gun is used. Other than that owners can do whatever they want with their guns with the understanding that the gun is ultimately their responsibility regardless of the possession. This should be reasonable as in the grand scheme of everything it makes the country safer.  Both Part A and Part B in relation to each other would decrease the number of gun owners in America and increase the safety and care when handling guns.

How can Part A specifically help in helping our country with gun issues? Part A as a piece of legislation would be the primary cause in the decrease in the number of gun owners. By forcing every transaction to be treated as if the gun were being purchased in a store would result in those who do not fit the criteria of the federal background checks and regulations to not legally purchase the gun. Besides the obvious people who would fail to meet the criteria, people will also begin to rethink purchasing guns as a result of the work necessary to legally purchase the weapon. By limiting the availability of guns, there becomes a direct impact of murders that happen as a result of guns. Based on a study displayed in Lafollette's "Gun Control", "the correlation between any gun-prevalence and the overall murder rate is .67" (LaFollette 275). This not only proves that guns correlate to murder, but it shows the importance of making sure the right people own guns. 

Beyond just limiting the purchases of guns in America, Part A helps lead to the increase of the price of black-market and secondary dealings ultimately lowering the amount of guns. As Part A limits who can purchase, it also limits how many guns are actually public as a result. This then leads to the underground price increasing. To better explain, if there is a shortage of a good (guns), then the guns increase in price as a result (Kwon 3). This economic viewpoint, also creates a decrease in the demand for the product. In this case, more people would be deterred from purchasing weapons illegally and move towards the legal option as a financially responsible option (Kwon 3). In turn, this could potentially lead to less sales on the black-market which means less illegal gun owners and in turn less crime. 

Now how can Part B help Part A accomplish the task of decreasing gun owners? Part B would piggyback on this idea of deterrence of gun owners. In the event of accidents and shootings, Part B would hold the person to whom the gun is registered to responsible in the eyes of the law. The risk of owning a gun becomes greater for the owner as they are held responsible regardless of the situation. This makes those who are thinking of purchasing guns to have more to think about and could decrease how many of them actually purchase the gun. Also those that already have guns registered in their name might rethink owning a gun and would try to get rid of the gun. Part B adds a level of safety that would result in only dedicated and responsible gun owners.

Besides decreasing gun ownership, Part B is also very useful in the prevention of gun related accidents and events. The responsibility created by owning a gun would result in people handling the gun better. Based on the Gun Violence Archive, accidents involving guns happen almost on a daily basis. For instance, April 2, 2016, just three days before this paper was written, there was a person killed in Rock Hill, SC as a result of an accident involving a gun being played with by three teenagers. This situation could have been prevented if Part B were in effect. The gun that was used in the "play" among the three should have been kept in a place for safekeeping. Part B, would force the owner of the gun to be responsible for his death even though they might not have done the actual act. They would be charged with negligence as a result and would have to pay punitive and compensatory damages as well. After the charges were settled, there would be an automatic deterrence from negligence in handling the gun by the owners themselves. 

In situations like the one in Rock Hill, there are so many people affected and hurt. These people themselves become advocates against guns and there is an anti-gun attitude created (Wolpert 246). Part B can add to this effect against guns, by affecting those who own guns in the area to become either more safe or get rid of their guns. Those that continued to own guns after this event would invest in better ways to store guns, and become more safe and careful when dealing with the weapons. With the "safety" mentality and the "anti-gun" mentality, there will exist a combination of the two that would advocate for smarter ownership of guns allowing more people to be affected (Wolpert 248). Regardless, the impact of this one situation can affect a whole community as a result of Part B. Many situations like this could, over time, make the nation smarter and more careful when handling their arms.

Part A handles the topic of care and handling in a different way than Part B. Through the background checks for all purchases, there would be a better way of knowing who all has guns and how they are registered. This would allow for the government to know what exists in the public. There should not be a tracking device on weapons or anything of that nature, just a database where the name of the owner, type of weapon, and weapon serial number that is updated frequently and is available to the public. This database, should not be used by the government for tracking purposes but only for the safety of the nation. This in turn will strengthen Part B and force safety and care when handling the registered guns. 

Part A would use this knowledge of the government knowing who registers guns to create a deeper disinclination towards owning guns. Those who fear government involvement and are suspicious of the involvement would in fact not purchase the gun. Also, those who do still purchase, are more aware of the risks if something were to happen to the gun that was registered in their name. More care would be made with the firearms, and safety will then be insured by the government to the public. 

Part A and Part B together are a two-step solution to help combat the problem of gun related violence in America, but it does not completely solve the problem of mass shootings and intentional murder in America. Honestly, there is no perfect plan to combat that problem, as there are situations and instances that can never be prevented. No matter how hard the nation tries to stop mass shootings, there are people in the world that inherently evil and there's nothing that can be done about that. The only thing that can be done is to provide awareness of gun owners. By providing more responsible owners and less irresponsible and illegal owners, then we can avoid the deaths that were accidental due to lack of care while handling the gun, as well as the deaths that happened through illegality such as underage purchases, online purchases, and gun show purchases. Regardless, the issue of gun control in America is a huge problem and no matter which way the nation decides to combat the issue, it needs to do so wholeheartedly with the interests of public safety above everything else. The more that the people argue about how to solve the issue without direct action results in more deaths and more irresponsible people owning guns. 

Being a responsible gun owner is important to the safety of our nation and being responsible as a country can prevent many deaths. Places, such as Chicago or Compton, are known for the violence that happens as a result of illegal weapons. The Chicago Tribune have a search to determine how many shooting victims happened from January of 2015 to December of 2015. There were a reported 2,988 victims in total in just that city alone (Tribune 2). This number can be dropped significantly as a result of Part A and Part B. By limiting the number of weapons there are less weapons to be used to kill other people. This two-part plan should in no way infringe upon the rights given by the second amendment. It creates a plan to limit the people that guns are sold to, deter future irresponsible gun owners, and penalize those who are irresponsible while handling and dealing with guns. The solution itself is a legal way to make everyone feel protected, and actually lower the number of those who are injured in the United States as a result of gun related violence.

