In recent years there have been mass shootings like San Bernardino, the Charleston Nine shooting, and Sandy Hook that have grabbed the attention of America and people all around the world because of the sadness of lives that were lost for no reason. The families of these victims will be in pain for a long time and it is selfish for us Americans who were not directly affected by the events to not have a passion to know more about the gun-control debate. The Gun-control debate has two very dramatic sides, one side that wants to keep ownership of all of their guns (pro-gun) and the other trying to get guns out of the hands of every American (anti-gun). I am going to compromise and make both sides of the debate happy by proposing a solution to get rid of big guns (Machine guns) in households, increase background checks, and keep guns needed for protection (pistols and shotguns) in the hands of American citizens because the second amendment (The Right to Bear Arms) was a major part of the U.S. Constitution for a good reason.

Amy Davidson starts out her article explaining how republican lawmaker's failed U.S. citizens after the Sandy Hook shooting because these lawmakers had a great opportunity to increase background checks and make America safer, but the republican lawmakers did nothing. Davidson brings up Sandy hook again by giving evidence that "After the Newtown School shooting, in 2012, there was a push to get a pair of modest bills through Congress -- a ban on some assault weapons, the closing of background-check loopholes -- but it failed" showing how confused and sick America's justice system is (Davidson 23). The least that legislators can do after a tragedy like Sandy Hook is make it harder for potential terrorists to get guns (Davidson 23). If we do not increase background checks then how can Americans expect America to be safer, is it out of sheer luck that America will be safer, I think not, it is going to take action by American citizens to influence legislators to the point where they have to make a difference. I am not saying that legislators should take guns away from rightful owners, but I am saying they should act now and to make it harder for potential killers. Let's not wait until someone we know is killed in a tragic event before we act, let's do something about these tragedies and call for a change in the law. 

Some American citizens think that the easy answer to stopping these violent crimes is to just get rid of guns altogether and have extremely strict gun laws, but William Hoar and I disagree with that claim. In Hoar's article he claims that other countries with gun laws that are far more strict laws than ours still have major problems with mass shootings and terrorists groups. Hoar goes against President Obama's claim that mass shootings just don't happen in other countries by giving the statistics that France suffered more injuries (508) from their mass shootings in the past year than America (424) has in Obama's entire presidency (Hoar 41-42).  Also Hoar uses a quote from White House spokesman Josh Earnest "The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets the more people go out and buy guns. And that is both ironic and tragic" this is a consequence of talking publicly about taking away guns from American citizens (Earnest, Hoar 41). President Obama making the statement would be the same as saying he is going to take away all of the money that citizens have in banks, of course people are going to go and get their money before it is gone. The government should know if they make a statement publicly that it should be after they are already enforcing because then that leaves time for people that should not own guns to purchase them. Hoar does a great job of showing the statistics of France compared to U.S. and this shows how terrorists can still hurt a lot of people in a country where gun laws are stricter (Hoar 42). It is because of what happened in France that strengthens my thoughts on the gun control debate and I believe that American citizens should be able to protect themselves with legally owned guns if potential terrorists can still find a way to get ahold of guns and hurt people. 

Virginia's Governor Terry McAuliffe signed a bill February 26 of 2016 which would take away guns from people who have a restraining order against them and make it require background checks at all gun shows (Portnoy N.P.). The author of the article Jenna Portnoy is trying to counter what the Governor did by using quotes from other people and her thoughts to knock down the governor and say what he is doing is unsafe. Portnoy uses one quote from a friend of McAuliffe who says "I am beyond disappointed that Governor McAuliffe, whom I consider a friend, has abandoned his standing as a gun-safety champion to strike a political deal with the gun lobby -- and that he is signing this legislation on the six month anniversary of my daughter Alison's death," (Portnoy N.P.) while it is very sad that McAuliffe's friends daughter died Portnoy does not provide evidence after this quote to show how the bill that was passed is going to make Virginia less safe. It is important to keep in mind the lives that were lost because of guns, but we have to come up with an approach that will make America safer and I think Governor McAuliffe is helping in doing that by making it harder for people with restraining orders against them and people with a criminal record to get a gun (Portnoy N.P.). 

In "A Familiar Tragedy Calls for Unfamiliar Solutions" the author talks about a shooting at a community college (Sanburn 11). Sanburn uses statistics from Pew Research Center that say "85% of Americans favor background checks for all gun purchases" (Sanburn 11) which is baffling because lawmakers have not done much to increase background checks. Sanburn then uses information that I presented to you earlier in Davidson's article about lawmakers not passing the bill that would mandate all gun purchases (Sanburn 11). If bills cannot be passed at the National level then I propose that they are passed at the state level and I would like to follow Virginia's Governor Terry McAuliffe in making it harder for potential killers to get guns by making background checks mandatory at gun shows and keeping guns out of the hands of people with restraining orders. I also think that people with any felony charges should not be allowed to purchase guns anywhere in the U.S.

Adam Shaw explains in this article used executive action to broaden the term of gun dealer so that more people would get a license to conduct background checks. I am not against everything Obama is saying, but in his action he is not clear enough for gun owners to know if selling their gun collection is legal (Shaw N.P.). The executive action is not clear and it will have to be settled in courts which is confusing to gun dealers and gun owners who might want to sell their collection (Shaw N.P.). The confusion in the executive action is hurting the dealers and owners who are trying to make a profit legally because they are not sure if they can sell their guns. Another thing Obama is doing is scaring potential killers into going ahead and stocking up on guns while the definition is unclear in court, this is in turn doing the opposite of what Obama wanted to do and is making America less safe. In the future I hope that Obama or our new President would take the time to make their executive action so clear that it cannot be debated and easily enforced so that we can keep potential killers from buying a gun after being alerted that background checks will be increased. 

The Netherlands Chief of Defense explains in a Ted Talk why he chose a gun and why he thinks that every nation in the world should as well. Uhm uses a statistic in his talk that explains "the use of guns backed up by a democracy is the reason that countries have decreased in violence by 30% since the Middle Ages" (Uhm) this totally goes against the argument that Americans would be safer if the government took away all of our guns. History is one of the best teachers and we should learn from that statistic because the Middle Ages are thought of as one of the most civilized times in history and yet it still had more violence without guns than we do now with guns. Uhm also uses in instance were his dad was able to defend his family from members of an invading army's because he had a gun to protect them with because without the gun Uhm's family would have been helpless (Uhm). Uhm's other argument is that countries do not want to fight when both sides have a ton of weaponry that can do a lot of harm because both sides know that there is no winner in that case (Uhm). Uhm expands on that thought by using the past as an example and I agree with what he says because countries back then did not have to worry about a nuclear war when they were invading (Uhm). Peter van Uhm a highly credible individual being the Netherlands Chief of Defense makes it clear why he owns a gun and why every citizen who passes strict background checks should be able to own one in every democratic country in the world. 

Todd May tries to answer a question in his article of whether American nonviolence is possible or not and he does so by giving background on why Americans are violent (May). The reasons May thinks that American's are violent because of our competitive individualism, our decline in ability to control events in the world, and lastly he thinks it is because a lot of Americans are hurting financially (May 354-355). He explains how Americans only care about themselves and for most people this statement is true, so when Americans have their back to the wall or are suffering from a poor quality of life they are more likely to be violent (May 354-355). May spends most of his argument focusing on people as individuals and not guns, he thinks that if we can make violence the last option instead of the first that there would be less killing in America and I completely agree with him (May 356-357). If us adults can instill in future generations that violence is the last resort and provide our kids and grandkids with other options then we can lessen the effect of violence in our world (May 356-357). 

This article is about a former commander in the Tennessee State Guard who lost his appeal to overturn his appeal to overturn his conviction for providing his soldiers with homemade machine guns (Warren N.P.). This article shows what the government is doing right because even if you are in the army that does not allow you to make machine guns that are unlicensed and sell them to anyone (Warren N.P.). Richard Hamblen uses the second amendment to back up his defense, but he forgets that there were no machine guns around when the U.S. Constitution was written (Warren). This is a time when I applaud the government and court judges for rightfully convicting a potentially dangerous individual because even army men and women can do harm with weapons as all of America saw from Aaron Alexis when he killed 12 people and injured 3 others at the Washington Navy Yard. I believe that we should ban private ownership of machine guns altogether because they are a lot more dangerous than a handgun and they are not needed to hunt. I propose that big guns like machine guns should be banned everywhere, except for shooting ranges that are monitored by police on a daily bases in case someone tries to cause harm and steal the weapons. To expand on that thought I think that the shooting ranges allowing people to shoot these guns should have extensive background checks that check for mental health, felonies, misdemeanors, and citizenship to make the use of these guns as safe as possible. A lot of gun owners will hate the idea, but if they want to shoot those guns that bad then they can give up 3o minutes to 2 hours doing a background check that can save people's lives. 

The solution to gun control is not the answer to what ails the mental health system, the solution is giving money back to the mental health system and using more resources towards all types of potential killers not just people with mental health issues.  (Wolf 851). Wolf explains how the government wastes resources by using them to make more laws so that people with mental health can't get ahold of guns (Wolf 852-854). I agree with Wolf because the government wastes money when they focus only on mental health laws after these shootings because some of the shooters could pass as being sane and because the government take away money from the mental health system which could identify potential killers earlier than the police would with a background check (Wolf 852-854). The more money that the mental health systems have then the more people that desperately need help can get the treatment they deserve instead of going out and hurting people (Wolf 852-854).

Christopher Hale takes a religious stance in supporting gun-control and Obama's actions. Christopher Hale uses the Pope to show the church is not for all this senseless killing (Hale N.P.). Hale then goes on to use the bible to say that Jesus is against killing (Hale N.P.). I have respect for Hale in using the bible, but there are stories in the bible like David and Goliath where David had to use a weapon (slingshot) to kill Goliath and save his people from more killing. I think that there are some instances where the use of a gun for self-defense can be justified especially when in the past and in the future violence will still go on with or without guns. 

In this article the author talks about how important self-defense is to women and she helps justify the need for women to have a gun and other forms of protection (Carlson 369). In her article she explains the problem of why women think they cannot own a gun because they are not feminine enough and then they do not choose any form of protection as a substitute (370-372). I completely agree with her stance because women should be able to own guns if they need them for protection (370-372). The potential for a women to raped is higher without self-defense and research shows that "women who fight back with a weapon (whether or not it is a gun) are more likely to avoid rape" and it also found "that women who resisted rape with guns or knives experienced a 1% rape rate" that is extremely low and it goes to show how much of a benefit guns are (Carlson 375). "In contrast, one study found that women who used only verbal strategies experienced a staggering rape rate of 96%" (Carlson 375) that is terrifying and it reiterates how important self-defense with a gun or other weapon is.

Kerri Raissian conducted research showed that after the federal Gun Control Act of 1996 domestic violence went down (Raissian 67). The Gun Control Act of 1996 helped expand background checks and it "led to 17 percent fewer gun-related homicides among female intimate partner victims and 31 percent fewer gun homicides among male domestic child victims" (Raissian 67) this shows how the government acting and expanding background checks can make our country safer. 

If our local, state, and National government work together and make laws to increase background checks and enforce that by sending policemen to monitor gun dealers weekly, then America will be a safer place. The background checks need to screen for people with mental health problems by getting a group of mental health doctors to come up with a survey that will give warning signs to someone with a potential mental health problem and those individuals should not be allowed to purchase a gun. Also to take away from the danger of machine guns altogether U.S. Citizens should only be allowed to shoot them at a shooting range if they pass their background check and no citizen would be able to buy a machine gun. I believe the only weapons that people should be allowed to purchase are hunting shotguns, pistols, and hunting rifles. Federal officials will send people to monitor the gun dealers weekly and make sure they are not selling machine guns or ammunition for machine guns. The federal officials monitoring this will be undercover and take the background check to see what the questions are and then try to purchase a gun illegally to test the dealers. If the dealers fail the test then they will serve jail time and be stripped of their dealing license. American citizens will be able to continue to own handguns for protection because they need it for their safety and because it is the second amendment right set out by our countries founding fathers. After these new laws are passed Americans will be safer because they can still protect themselves, the guns used in most mass shootings will be gone, and the background checks will make it a lot harder for potential killers to get a gun.

