Fighting gun violence is an extremely daunting task.  With a practically split country, Republicans and the NRA have the upper hand, and nothing seems to be getting done or looks like it will in the near future.  There are nearly 300 million guns already in circulation, and due primarily to loopholes in the laws, responsible, law-abiding gun owners are in no way benefiting from owning their guns in the eyes of much of the country.  Due to the actions of a few, that obtain firearms in unlawful ways and commit unlawful acts, a fair amount of the country is forced to oppose guns mostly all together.  This is simply due to the fact that the opposed are uneducated, and cannot grasp the full picture.  This country was founded on the principle that the citizens hold the option to rebel against an oppressive government, and it is wrong to infringe on that. The increasing number of mass shootings and accidental gun deaths in America is due to a lack of regulation of how they are obtained and by whom, an inappropriate interpretation of what was meant in the Constitution as well as not enough education regarding guns.  The Constitution allows for every American citizen to own a gun, but this group of gun owners also must be "well regulated".  So where is the regulation?

In the United States today, guns are much too easily obtained.  This is mainly due to a lack of regulation, that includes background checks, as well as gun show loopholes and guns sold on the black market and internet.  Corinne Jones, a writer for CNN, wrote an article about how the current system of background checks actually works, and how it is actually fairly strenuous.  Once someone decides that they want to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, their name is put into the NICS, or National Instant Criminal Background Check System.  After a few minutes of cross-referencing different FBI managed databases, the NICS tests whether or not the buyer is eligible.  Under this system, "buyers may be denied the purchase of a firearm for reasons such as being indicted or convicted of a felony, admitting to being addicted to a controlled substance, having been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, being subject to a restraining order, as well as other regulations" including poor mental health (Jones CNN).  Two percent of the 2.1 million background checks have been denied since 1998, but the regulated guns are not the problem; barely any firearms purchased through licensed dealers with background checks are used in illegal shootings (Jones CNN).  Loopholes are the main issue.  The main one being that private sales of firearms do not require background checks, while about 20% of all firearm transactions are private (Jones CNN).  This is where the most trouble happens.  It is not with the law abiding citizens that are following the parameters of the Constitution to protect themselves, but rather the criminals and others that obtain their guns through private transactions, mainly gun shows.   

Any person that is looking to commit a crime, is most likely not going to purchase a weapon from a licensed gun dealer.  Instead, these people choose the private sale more often.  If background checks were required in all sales of firearms, not only would the amount of guns be reduced, but the amount of unlawful people carrying them would also decrease.  But not all private sale gun transactions are with criminals; they are also with people that simply do not know what they are doing with a gun, and think that just purchasing one will immediately offer protection, but this can come with unwarranted outcomes.  Susan Milligan, a writer for U.S. News, highlights the argument that taking more guns away, will lower the probability and numbers of gun related deaths and injuries.  When she uses the word "taking", she is referring to removing certain guns from being sold altogether, but "taking" can also refer to the indirect removal of guns before they are purchased by someone that cannot handle or maintain a gun properly.  Mulligan mentions the story of a man in Florida that shot and killed another movie-goer in the theatre because they refused to stop texting (Mulligan).  Yes, almost every American can own a gun, but should they? Clearly this man was incapable of being responsible with his firearm, and someone else faced the consequences for it.  The shooter might not have been a terrible person, but just acting out of frustration.  Maybe they even purchased their gun from a licensed dealer or from a private transaction, but limiting the type of people that can get easy access to a gun will not only reduce the amount of instances like this, but also save lives.

During a televised CNN Town Hall meeting with President Obama, an Arizona sheriff challenged him as to how he planned to prevent mass shootings in the future.  Obama went on to talk about how he is against certain guns like semi-automatic rifles, like the one used in the Sandy Hook shooting, and how difficult it is to actually predict when a shooting like that will take place.  Obama's main point was not in conjunction to my main argument, but he did make an important comment about availability.  Obama mentioned that the shooter "didn't have a criminal record", so there was no realistic way to know what he was going to do, "but he was able to have access to an arsenal, that allowed him in very short order to kill an entire classroom of small children" (Arizona).  This example, of Sandy Hook, not only highlights the need for guns to be more regulated and the owners of guns to be known, but also accentuates the problem of mental illness and guns.  When someone with a mental illness is on record and attempts to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, they are denied that weapon.  But if they purchase a weapon in a private transaction, there is a significantly better chance that they will be able to attain that weapon.  

Another example of gun violence in relation to mental illness is the death of Chris Kyle, otherwise know as the 'American Sniper'.  Chris was killed by a man that he was trying to help, that had been dealing with drug problems, on top of a release from the armed forces.  Taya Kyle, his wife, explained that she was once a nonbeliever in guns, but after her husband's death, realized that the guns themselves are not the problem, but the people wielding them for the intention of committing a criminal act (Kyle).  This is similar to Tania Lombrozo's article about gun violence related to the mentally ill, where Lombrozo goes on to explain that preventing 'mentally ill' people from obtaining guns makes it look like these mass shootings are only isolated events, and by a small number of people, when in reality they are not the only ones committing crimes with firearms.  This makes regulating guns unfair to the rest of the country because only a small number is being targeted while the rest of the nation is punished (Lombrozo).  Taya goes on to explain in her article that even though the killer suffered drug problems, he claimed PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as an excuse.  The jury still found him guilty, but the real question remains as to why this man was allowed to have access to such a large arsenal, when he was a recovering drug user.  Drug addiction is a mental illness.  If a person decides to abuse drugs, and has been known and on record to do so, they should completely lose the right to own a firearm, until a certain allotted time has passed.  Most of the time, these instances would not have happened in other places around the world.

Many countries have attempted to "solve" the gun violence issue in their borders.  Countries like England that do not allow private citizens to own handguns, and Australia which has not had a mass shooting since 1996 are only a few examples (Donohue).  However, although a mass shooting has not occurred, gun murders in Australia have risen by 19%, and armed robberies have risen by 69% (Jones Huffington).  This shows once again that there is no just "taking away guns", because criminals will still obtain them if they really want to.  But then how does one explain a country like Switzerland, in which all able-bodied men are part of a "militia" that receives a government issued firearm, that they must keep (Switzerland)?  The only problem however, is that these other countries are not America.  They do not have a Constitution like ours.  They do not have the same culture as ours.  The right to own guns was the second amendment written into the Constitution, behind freedom.  America was won with guns, and continues to be an entirely different animal when it comes to guns.  And we have tried heavier regulations and gun buy-back programs in the past, like the Assault Weapons Ban, signed by Bill Clinton in 1994 (Kreig).  But they have not worked.  With 300 million guns already in circulation, these programs just are not the answer, and we cannot look to other countries to solve this problem (Donohue).  

The banning of certain guns or guns altogether will spell disaster.  In places like Chicago where assault rifles have been banned, it still remains at the top of the gun violence chart among US cities.  Ellen Grace Jones, a writer for the Huffington Post, wrote an article in which she explains why banning guns in the US is the worst idea possible.  She uses the word, "prohibition" and how it "in whatever form, does not work. It didn't work for alcohol, it certainly doesn't work for drugs and as evidence shows, will not work for guns either. All outlawing does is willingly gift supply and control to gang cartels and remove things from the hands of law-abiding citizens" (Jones Huffington).  This type of "ban" does not exist, nor can it.   Criminals will always be able to find a gun if they really want to, and by taking away guns from law abiding citizens, the criminals can pretty easily do what they want, with much less resistance.  But at the same time, the Constitution still calls for some regulation.

As written out in the Constitution, "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 key word here is "regulated".  Although this term is not defined in the Constitution as to the extent of how much regulation is required, Abner J. Mikva explains in his article that effective firearm regulation is constitutional.  He states that "Comprehensive registration laws would not have alarmed those who wrote the Second Amendment. In the early republic, gun owners were frequently required to register their weapons with local authorities. A "well regulated militia," of course, is subject to rules that ensure firearms are used safely and appropriately" (Mikva).  Those opposed of more regulation on gun control, specifically regarding private sales, continue to hide behind the Constitution and the "not be infringed" part, also arguing that guns are already regulated enough.  But if nearly 20% of all gun sales are processed with no background check, how can that be classified as "well regulated" (Jones CNN)?  If there are 300 million guns in the hands of civilians, that means that around 60 million of those guns were purchased without a proper background check.  If most criminals purchase guns through these private sale loopholes, then that lessens the amount of people that should not be carrying a gun, creating a saver environment.  

Many people do not realize that guns do not do the actual killing, it is the bullets.  Huffington Post occasionally releases articles written by teens, one in particular could help solve the gun violence problem.  Murray Rosenbaum, an eighteen-year old, wrote an article about how cheap and easy to obtain bullets are.  Average 9mm handgun ammunition goes for around $0.24 per bullet, with no ID or background check; just a credit card (Rosenbaum).  That's $12 for fifty rounds.  He mentions that the difference between a gun with zero rounds and a gun with fifty rounds is that the second gun can actually cause significant damage.  "The trick", he says, "is making bullets more expensive" (Rosenbaum). By taxing bullets substantially, people are less likely to stockpile ammunition, and more likely to use guns for their intention: protection and hunting, which does not require a surplus of ammunition.

Every year, there seems to be another mass shooting or significant gun death, and every year, nothing is really done about it.  People wielding guns that they should not have, due mainly to the lack of regulation, commit crimes that have our country in an uproar.  Nothing significant happens to the laws because it really never can.  There is just too much opposition on either side, and a no realistic, immediate and effective plan of action.   With over 300 million guns already in circulation, gun registry systems just cannot be trusted.  But instead, we can hopefully make the future a little bit safer.  By requiring all gun transactions, licensed and none, to perform background checks, we can substantially reduce the amount of irresponsible and erratic gun owners.  Just because the actions of a few operate dangerously, that does not mean that the rest of the law abiding gun owners should suffer.  Gun violence in this country is due to not nearly enough regulation, and people not being educated enough on the capability of guns and what the Constitution says about them.  But by implementing a realistic system that will begin to take hold of who buys what and for what purpose, this country may just be cured.

