In the late 1700s when America was trying to establish itself as a newly formed country, our founding fathers worked endlessly to make sure our country was one that insured life, liberty and property to all of its citizens. The framers of the constitution put their heads together to form a government much different from the one that they had recently emancipated from, and they made sure to write a Constitution for the American people that insured individual freedoms and rights to all of its citizens. In 1791, the United States adopted the Bill of Rights, 10 amendments to the constitution that insured basic rights to all Americans. One of the first 10 amendments, the second, stated that all US citizens had the right to bear arms. This right was granted to Americans in 1791, when “arms” included guns that fired one or two shots per minute, not machine guns that can fire anywhere from 300 to 1800 rounds per minute. The right to bear arms is a basic right that all Americans should have, but to what extent? It is important to place limitations on the guns that the average American citizen is able to buy, and even more important to increase gun control laws to make sure that these guns do not end up in the wrong hands. Too many people die every year from gun violence, and these fatalities could very easily be avoided if certain restrictions were placed on the sales of guns all around the country. It’s not plausible that Americans are using an 18th century right to argue the use of 21st century guns. There is no argument to infringe on the right of the American citizen to bear arms, but there is a very strong argument to be made to restrict this right in order to make the use and possessions of guns safer for all Americans. 

One of the first mass shootings to capture America’s attention and draw concern to the issue of guns was the shooting that took place at Columbine high school in Colorado. On the day of April 20, 1999, two students attending the high school entered in large black coats, backpacks filled with their weapons of choice, and an intricate plan of attack ready to be set in motion. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had been planning this attack for months, and the day had finally come. Most of their attack took place in the library, where students had virtually nowhere to hide except for under the tables. The gunmen seemed to be focusing their attack on the school’s athletes, because reports state they yelled for all jocks to stand. When nobody stood up, they began shooting. On the morning of the shooting, Dawn Anna, mother of Lauren Townsend, was shopping for college supplies for her daughter who would be attending college in less than a year. While driving around, she heard on the radio that police had been called to her daughter’s school. As any parent would do after hearing something like this, she kept listening to more reports of what was happening, and after hearing that someone had opened fire at the school, she rushed there immediately. The reporters had stated that students in the library had been killed or fatally injured, and based on the time of the day, Dawn Anna knew that was where Lauren was. While hiding under a table consoling two other female students and telling them that all would be okay, Lauren was shot and killed (Robb). Lauren, only 18, never got the chance to take the new things her mother had purchased for her to college, because Lauren was murdered before she even had the opportunity to go to college. Since the events of April 20, 1999, there have been 64 other mass shootings in America. 64. Klebold and Harris obtained their guns from a gun show and illegally from an unknown individual. They used one semiautomatic handgun, one rifle, and two handguns (Aronsen, Follman, Pan). After Columbine drew the question of gun control into the public eye, many schools adopted a zero-tolerance policy for any weapons and any threat of violence, but nothing had been done for gun control laws. So 64 times, post-Columbine, shooters have opened fire in a multitude of different venues in all different states in America, killing ordinary people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The thing is, there should be no “wrong place wrong time.” Americans shouldn’t live in fear that they will be gunned down at school, or at their local movie theater, or at their workplace, or their church, or anywhere else.  It only makes sense to increase laws on gun control in America, especially to ensure that the guns don’t end up in the wrong hands.  The easiest way to prevent guns from ending up in dangerous hands is through the use of Brady Background checks. Nine out of ten Americans agree that these background checks should be implemented for all gun sales, and only 6% of Americans disagree with them. In his TED talk, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Dan Gross says, “Enough…enough of a small group of craven politicians putting the interests of the corporate gun lobby ahead of the people that they have been elected to represent, enough” (Gross). What he means by this is that gun sales are a huge part of corporate America, and lobbyists fear that increasing laws on gun control will lose them profit. But they’re putting profit before the lives of human beings. Nobody is saying to make guns illegal, guns can still be sold throughout the country, just in a safer way. Many argue that as Americans, we all have the right to gun ownership as declared in the second amendment of the constitution, but there is no viable reason for any ordinary person to own an assault rifle and keep it in their home. It is way too easy to obtain these weapons that are so powerful and so dangerous. Children can easily access these guns if they are kept in the home. Two thirds of school shootings happen with a gun taken from the home, including the attack on the Elementary School Sandy Hook (Gross). 

After the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, the immediate reaction was that yes, something needed to be done to prevent this from ever happening again. It seemed hopeful at first, because people were heartbroken and furious. In the months after the shooting had happened, the support for stricter gun laws in Connecticut had reached 60%. “FBI data showed that more guns had been purchased on December 21, 2012, than on any preceding day, as people worried that it might be their last chance to purchase any firearms they wanted” (Zornick 22). Although Congress did nothing to change the gun control laws in America after Sandy Hook, many states did take action. “Since Newtown, more than half of all Americans now live in states with stronger gun control laws” (Zornick 25). It would be much more productive for Congress to set nationwide laws about gun control, but with the NRA paired with pro-gun groups such as Gun Owners of America, and with the House of Representatives being Republican, it is extremely unlikely that any changes will be made soon. It seems that the NRA and the GOP have always stood by each others’ sides. The NRA has recently taken stances on multiple different issues such as race, healthcare, and immigration. Instead of simply protecting gun rights, they have painted themselves as the image of the right side of the political spectrum, gaining trust and support from most republicans. The NRA has made its stance on “constitutional carry” loud and clear, they believe that “anyone [should] be allowed to carry a concealed handgun without training, background checks, or permits of any kind” (Sykes). This is absolutely crazy and makes no sense, there is no need to carry a weapon with you at all times, especially if you don’t even have the ability to use it correctly. Charles Sykes, conservative talk show host and editor of Right Wisconsin, stated that “the NRA position made no sense from the standpoint of either public safety or politics.” However, the gun lobby and gun owners do have different beliefs and Sykes points out, “my listeners overwhelmingly supported gun rights but thought that requirements for background checks, safety training and permits just made sense” (Sykes).  

Some may argue that increasing gun laws will not stop the issue of gun violence or mass shooting. There are already approximately 300 million guns in various homes across the country (Gross). Any of those guns can be used in a mass shooting, and since the sale of guns has been so lenient for all of this time, the problem is too big to stop. Why should the average gun owner be punished for the crimes of a certain few, especially when they can very easily purchase their weapons regardless? In 1996, there was an attack in Port Author, Australia, where 35 people were killed and 23 were wounded, making that the deadliest mass shooting in Australia. Following this shooting, Australia’s prime minister introduced the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act of 1996, which banned semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. Prior to these gun law reforms, there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia within the past 18 years. But from the implementation of these laws until the present, Australia has seen zero mass shootings. Not a single one. Placing restrictions on the guns that may be purchased by the average American will only benefit our citizens as a whole, and gun hobbyists should be able to sacrifice some of their deadlier guns for the greater good.

Still, there is the argument that regardless of placing stricter laws on the purchase of guns, murderers will still find a way to carry out their attacks. There is an entire world of weaponry to be used, and if a person is driven enough to kill in the first place, they will find a way no matter what weapon is being used. Recently in Charlottesville Virginia, there was an outbreak of violence after white nationalists planned a rally over the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee. After multiple fights and racial taunting, the governor of Virginia was forced to declare a state of emergency, and the National Guard was called in to assist the police in breaking up the crowd. After everyone had settled, a silver car with Ohio license plates drove through a large crowd outside of city hall, injuring 34 people and killing a 32 year old woman (Rosenthal, Stolberg). No firearms were used in this attack in Virginia, and the suspect was still able to harm a large group of people. How is limiting the ability to purchase guns going to stop violence? Why has nobody tried to limit the ability to purchase cars? Why is it only guns that people seem to get upset about? 

In the state of Virginia, there are steps you must take before driving a vehicle. There are certain documents you must present, tests you have to pass, courses you have to take. Nobody wants an inexperienced driver speeding down a busy highway for the obvious reason that this is extremely dangerous to both the driver with no experience and all other drivers and passengers on the road at the time. To get a driver’s license in Virginia according to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), you need to present proof of identity, legal presence, Virginia residency, and a social security number. You also must successfully complete a DMV-approved driver’s education course or you must hold a Virginia learner’s permit for a minimum of 60 days. After this, you must complete a vision test and a written knowledge test, and then finally pass a road skills test (DMV.org). Obtaining a driver’s license is no walk in the park, it’s time consuming and the DMV does it’s best to ensure that drivers are well prepared to drive before they are actually allowed to. However, to purchase a gun in Virginia is much easier. In the state of Virginia, you do not need a permit to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. It is legal in Virginia to carry a handgun. Before purchasing a gun, a criminal record history check must be completed. You must have a driver’s license for a minimum of 30 days in order to purchase a gun (NRA-ILA.org). But there is no training. There is no course that must be taken in order to use a gun, no written test about guns, no physical test to ensure the owner of the gun knows how to use it properly. In Virginia, the process of obtaining a driver’s license is so much more intense, and so much safer than the process of obtaining a gun. Just as it is dangerous to have an inexperienced driver out on the roads, it is just as dangerous to have an inexperienced gunman waving weapons around with no clue how to use them. 

It’s true that the second amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms, but this can be interpreted differently by everyone. Some people know this to mean guns. Arms are guns, everyone should have guns if they want them no matter what. But the second amendment never mentions guns specifically. “The right to keep and bear arms is not so much a right in and of itself, as an auxiliary mechanism that protects the real unalienable right underneath: that of self defense” (Cooke 26). The right to self defense is extremely important. In his article, Cooke gives an example of a petite woman defending herself against a large man with the use of a baseball bat or a knife. If he has those same weapons readily available, the woman has little chance, but with a nine millimeter glock, for example, it’s much more likely she will get herself out of the situation with little or no harm (Cooke 26). But arming oneself with a nine millimeter glock versus arming oneself with a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S riflea semiautomatic rifle effectively firing 45 rounds per minute are two completely different ideas. This was the main weapon used by Adam Lanza in the massacre at Sandy Hook, and the gun was registered under his mother’s name. There is absolutely no reason that any average American citizen should have this gun in their home. This gun is not used for self defense, a gun of that power is used for murder. Cruel and intentional murder. Nobody would be losing their right to self defense if this gun was restricted to only certain people. 

The goal of enacting stricter gun control laws is not to punish gun owners, or keep people from owning guns, or to keep guns out of homes. The goal is to make gun ownership safer for everyone, to make gun owners more practiced and educated about the firearms they are using, and to make sure that guns don’t end up in the hands of dangerous people. In America, there is no need to carry a concealed weapon with you everywhere you go, guns should be kept in the homes where they can be used for self defense if necessary, not at church, or movie theaters, or schools. Most mass shootings happen with guns taken from the home, so limiting the guns that people are allowed to keep in the home would reduce the amount of mass shootings and reduce the amount of casualties when mass shootings occur. Sure, guns don’t kill people. People kill people. But doesn’t it only make sense to limit the weapons available to kill people? Why make it easy for the shooter to have the gun of his/ her choice? There have been 64 mass shootings in America since the events of Columbine, and there doesn’t need to be any more. We have the power and the knowledge to prevent these massacres from happening, and all it will take is the cooperation of our nation as a whole to accept and enact stricter gun control laws. 
