Guns have been an important part of Americans' lives since before the country was established. America would not exist today if the settlers didn't have guns. Colonial settlers depended on guns for everything from protection against the Native Americans, to hunting for their food. We used guns to fight, and to win our nations independence from the British. After we won our independence, the founding fathers established the country based on the foundation of freedom. Our nation's Constitution was written to insure that the citizens were always guaranteed certain inalienable rights. Guns played such a role in our early nation that the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of gun rights. The second amendment in the constitution states, "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 U.S. Constitution). Today many people just pick out "the right to bear arms" and claim that gun regulations take away their constitutional right. However, a lot has changed since the constitution was originally written back in 1787. 

Not everyone sees guns the same way that people did 200 years ago. Many people today see guns as a symbol of violence, and a tool that's primary purpose is to inflict harm on other humans. Guns by themselves are safe, and are not dangerous unless someone does not handle it correctly or chooses to use it too harm others. Sadly, people tend to view firearms as dangerous, when in fact the majority of guns in America are operated safely and responsibly, predominantly in the rural areas across the country. Gun violence however, is a widespread issue in many metropolitan areas. America has significantly higher rates of homicides involving guns than all the other developed countries. Over 100,000 people in America each year are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention. 32,000 Americans are killed by, someone using, a gun each year (the Brady Campaign). These statistics include the victims of mass shooting. There has been an alarming number of mass shootings across America. Mass shootings are not common, but when they do happen they are extremely shocking. Mass shootings have shocked this nation countless times. When a mass shooting is reported on the news people often can't help but feel strong emotions. There is no denying that America has a serious problem with guns. We can all agree that this problem should be fixed, but we start to disagree on how. The pro gun control side's stance is that making guns harder to buy and restricting the types of guns that can be sold would fix this nations gun problem by preventing stop mass shootings and reduce crime rates. However this is not true. Gun control measures, like mandatory background checks, are not successful in keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Restrictions on certain type of guns like assault rifles, handguns, and high-capacity magazines have no meaningful effect on reducing crime rates as well. America's gun debate has become mostly ideological in recent years. America's problem with gun violence should not be fought over ideological differences, but rather the true heart of the issue.  An increase in Gun regulations, in general, would not solve the nations gun violence problem.

Generally, everyone agrees that if we can prevent guns from being in the wrong persons hands at the wrong time, then we can stop nearly all gun crimes and gun violence. Gun control measures recently have focused on background checks as a way to do this. In theory, a background check would provide gun retailors with a comprehensive history of a potential customer and determine if the customer would use the gun in a crime or to harm someone. The idea seams valid, but in reality, background checks are not a successful way to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Background checks can only search what someone has done not what they might do in the future. Background checks are tricky because determining what type of information about someone's past signals that they are not suitable to own a gun is hard to say. For example, if a customer had a speeding ticket on his record should we say that he might be a risk taker and therefore can't be trusted with a gun? Medical records are often kept private between the doctor and the patient unless the doctor feels that the patient is an immediate threat to himself or to others, for this reason a lot of mental health information can not be found in a background check. 

On January 4th 2016, President Barrack Obama said, "The most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence is to make sure those who would commit violent acts cannot get a firearm in the first place" in regards to an executive order on gun control that he had just signed (Sisak). His executive order requires all vendors of firearms to have to run a full background check on the customer before they can sell them a gun, regardless of where you conduct your business. While background checks do stop guns getting into some wrong hands, it is far from guaranteed to. 

Most of the guns used in mass shootings are acquired in a way that is nearly impossible to prevent.  The four most recent, infamous shootings would not have been affected by the executive order. Adam Lanza, the shooter of sandy hook elementary, did not buy the gun that he used. He used his mother's gun that she legally bought (Sisak). James Holmes shot up a movie theater filled with innocent people in aurora Colorado. James legally bought the weapon's he used after passing a background check (Sisak). We now know he was previously undergoing private psychiatric treatment, but that is not something that can be disclosed in a background check. Dylan Roof passed a background check to buy the gun that he used to attack a church down in Charleston (Sisak). And in San Bernardino, California a 3rd accomplice passed a background check to buy multiple guns, which he gave to the 2 shooters (Sisak). None of these shooters could have been stopped by restrictions on buying guns. There are countless examples of how background checks and making it harder to buy a gun just simply can't stop crimes. 

One approach to fixing our gun violence problem focuses on limiting the types on firearms that are legal to own. This idea is fundamentally wrong because it rests on the belief that certain types of guns are more harmful then others. An assault rifle is no more dangerous than a hunting rifle. Hunting rifles often can shoot at the same rate with an identical caliber as an assault rifle. Assault rifles differ from normal rifles primary because of how they are build. Features of an assault rifle include: a detachable magazine, a collapsible stock, a pistol like grip, and a threaded barrel. In 1994 president Bill Clinton signed into law a ban on the ability to buy assault weapons. The federal ban on assault weapons tried to address the publics concern over gun violence rates and the occurrence of mass shooting (D.O.J.). A study over tracking the assault weapons ban's effects over ten years found that there was no proof that the ban did anything to reduce shooting deaths (D.O.J.). The ban explores many reasons why it had no effect. Citing most obviously that the types of guns that were banned only previously accounted for two percent of all shooting deaths. Handguns also are at the center of the gun regulation debate. The two sides drastically disagree on the effects concealed carrying permits have on crime. Many liberals expected that if more people always had a gun on them then the crime rate would increase. Many conservatives predicted that people would be more likely to intervene and prevent crime if they had a gun, therefore the crime rates would lower. It turns out that neither of their prediction were true. The most rigorous data analyses could not prove a correlation between the number of concealed carrying permits and the number of gun violent crimes (Kristof). Regulating high-capacity magazines is another popularly disputed firearm restriction. The federal Assault weapons ban official defined a high-capacity magazine as any magazine that is capable of holding more that 10 rounds of ammunition at a time. The number of rounds that a magazine can hold is important because it determines how often the user needs to stop and reload. Currently there are eight states in the United States that ban or regulate the public sale of high-capacity magazines. Those that support banning these types of magazines normally have one or both of two major concerns. I first major concern is that large magazines would increase the violence during mass shootings because the shooter would not have to stop and reload. The second is that high capacity magazines are commonly used in crimes. There are a lot of people that think that a high capacity magazine could have a drastic effect on the outcome of mass shooting. Some say that it can turn a shooter into a machine, and it is true that nearly half of all mass shooters us a high-capacity magazine. High capacity magazines actually have a negligible effect on how deadly a shooting is. High capacity magazines allow for more ammunition to be loaded into a gun at one time, prolonging how long the user can operate it before needing to stop and reload. This can be usefully when hunting, competing in sporting completions, and in moments like war because in those moments all it takes is a blink of an eye and an opportunity can pass. During mass shooting however very little will change during the time that a shooter takes to reload. Once a magazine is out of ammunition it only take someone who knows their way around a gun a few seconds to reload and be ready to fire the gun again. Most of the time mass shooters target a public place that has a lot of people, so they don't need to ever look far for their next target. During the couple of seconds that the shooter is reloading it is possible that some people could successfully run or hide from the shooter but their will always be more people that couldn't get away. After those few seconds are up the shooter wont have any problem finding his next target. Most mass shooters choose a place where they know the people have no way to defend themselves. While the shooter is reloading his gun he can't use it against anyone who might be trying to stop him.  Theoretically when the shooter is reloading his gun he is the most vulnerable to being stopped, but those few seconds don't mean anything if no one there can stop him. In most cases the victims have no way of trying to stop the shooter and have to wait until people who can help arrive. Once the police arrive on scene the shooter has very little time until he's stopped, but by then most of the damage that the shooter could inflict he already has. 

America is one of the greatest countries in the world. Our economic, political, and military influence across the world is unlike anywhere else. Our strong work ethic combined with the natural resources, that bless our land, allowed America to rise from nothing and become the great and prosperous nation that it is today. The American dream is alive and well. However, America does have its share of problems. The issue of gun violence plagues this nation. It is unacceptable that we are the only developed country in the world that still has this problem. We owe it to ourselves, and the nation, to resolve this problem. We are not going to fix it by continuing the debate on gun control. Mandatory background checks are not an effective means to keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Placing a restriction on a firearms or magazine wont have an effect on gun crime or make guns any less deadly. There isn't much left in the gun control debate other than trying to outlaw guns entirely. European countries successfully got rid of most of the publics' guns, and as a result gun crime is almost non-existent. However, trying to outlaw guns in America today would be an impossible task. To start, the constitution explicitly protects citizens right to bear arms, so the government could never pass a law that would take away that right. The logistics of trying to forcefully remove 270 million guns from households all across just isn't feasible either. America has a strong gun culture. Many people see guns a representing the core values of America. One thing is clear; the gun control debate is completely irrelevant when considering how to fix the nations gun problem. Those who currently support more gun control laws need to let it go and respect the constitutional right that we all have to own and operate a firearm. America can not solve this problem if we remain divided in our efforts. We can find a way to solve this problem. We will try new ideas, probably fail a few times, but eventually the American spirit will prevail and we will eradicate the issue gun violence. 

