Gun control has been a controversial debate over the years, and the increase in mass shootings has brought this issue to the forefront of American politics.  No doubt, the recent massacre in Las Vegas killing dozens and injuring more than 500 concert goers, will once again spark the argument regarding gun ownership.  The latest slaughter of 26 church parishioners in Sutherland Springs, Texas will further complicate this issue.  In this instance, the killer was immobilized by a citizen carrying a legal weapon.  If not for this action, critics believe this gunman would have continued this spree killing many more.

Gun owners argue, under the U.S. Constitution, citizens have the legal right to possess a firearm.  The Second Amendment of the U.S. 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 right to bear arms allows citizens to protect themselves in their daily lives, or in the extreme case of a government turning against its people. The act of banning firearms would directly defy what our founding fathers, who authored this country’s constitution, thought suitable for our nation.   

On the contrary, proponents of stricter gun regulations fear for their safety, and safety of their families due to the escalating numbers of murders, massacres, accidents, and police intervention. They believe the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right and was designed and intended for militias only. The article “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” states, “On average, thirty-two Americans are murdered with guns every day and one hundred-forty are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room” (“Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence”). This group was named after Jim Brady, a press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, who was shot and permanently disabled on Mar. 30, 1981 during an assassination attempt on the President. Some gun control supporters believe completely banning handguns is the best way to protect citizens, and reduce gun violence.

Banning the sale of alcohol in the Prohibition Act of 1920 was an experiment to reduce crime and corruption and improve social problems, health and hygiene.  Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. Colleen Graham, author of “The United States Prohibition of Alcohol,” states, “While the intention was to reduce the consumption of alcohol by eliminating businesses that manufactured, distributed, and sold it, the plan backfired” (Graham, 2017).   Alcohol became more dangerous to consume.  Crime increased and became “organized”.  The court and prison systems were over-burdened and over-crowded.  Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.

Similarly, the debate over legalization of marijuana is another example of a noble experiment, with a less than desired result. Almost identical to the Prohibition Act, illegal marijuana (also known as pot, weed or cannabis) is sold on the black market and its use, and sale of, is a crime.  The intent is to reduce or end the use of marijuana.  Court’s and prisons are overwhelmed, and a significant source of tax revenue is not being recognized.  Rather than eliminating the use of marijuana, it has given a rise to gangs, drug dealers and drug related crime.  Cannabis is being sold in the shadows to children, with no regulation on its potency or additives.  Many have turned to more harmful drugs and narcotics due to the cost and difficulty in obtaining cannabis.

Outlawing handguns fails to address the criminal buying and selling firearms on the black market.  Neither Prohibition or illegal marijuana stopped its usage.  The law-abiding society would be left defenseless and helpless. Crime and violence is surely to surge if only the “bad guys” own the weapons. Banning guns would only take them out of the hands of honest citizens and give law breakers an advantage over an unarmed society. Moreover, Earl Bumpkin, author of “Gun Control Leaves Only Criminals Armed,” asserts, “gun control laws ensure thieves and bad people that the person they want to take down will be defenseless (Bumpkin, 5). There will be no law to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to stop criminals from using them illegally.

Additionally, banning something doesn’t necessarily mean there won’t be unintended consequences.  The unforeseen complications, as in the examples above, may cause more harm than good.  Furthermore, banning hand guns would require an amendment or re-writing of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.   Zachary Elkins, an associate professor of government at the University of Texas, claims “A new gun-rights amendment would need to articulate a basic consensus that would let both sides claim victory. The alternative is more violent rhetoric — and more deadly violence (Elkins, 2013).  This would be extremely difficult as both sides view the Constitution differently. One side believes it to be a living document that changes due to circumstances, culture and experiences. The other interprets it solely by what is written, at the time it was written. 

Walter Hickey, author of Business Insider Australia, states “The United States has the highest gun ownership rates in the world and the second highest rate of gun deaths among industrialized nations” (Hickey, 2012). President Donald Trump tweeted “The most stringent gun laws in the U.S. happen to be in Chicago – and look what is happening there” (Bauer, 2017). Yet, in a 28-day period, from Sept. 2 through Sept. 29, 2017, 58 gun-deaths were reported in that city alone.  That is the same number of people who were massacred in Las Vegas, one of the largest mass shootings in American history.  There has been little reported on Stephen Paddock, the perpetrator in the Las Vegas tragedy.   His firearms were legally purchased.  Additionally, the bump stock gun accessory that enabled him to fire rapidly is also legal under federal and Nevada firearm laws. “Audio analysis of one clip estimated that about 90 rounds were unleashed in only 10 seconds – far faster than a human being could repeatedly pull a trigger” (BBC News, 2017).  Automatic weapons are currently banned under federal law.  Paddock used several semi-automatic weapons that he modified with bump stocks.  Bump stocks do not technically convert semi-automatic weapons to automatic ones, which explain their legal status.  “One calculation based on a database complied by Mother Jones found that more than 80 percent of guns in mass shootings were legal” (Graham, 2016).  Based on the above, we should be scrutinizing what constitutes a “legal” firearm. 

Rather than banning firearms entirely, strict regulations should be instituted and enforced.  David Graham, author of “What’s the Solution to Gun Violence in America?” claims “the best research we have suggests that the universal background checks would probably have some negative effect on the number of shooting” (Graham, 2016).  Universal background checks should include a person’s age, citizenship, criminal and mental history.  Substance abuse and violent behavior should also be assessed.  Loopholes, such as the bump stock conversion noted above, should be rectified.  Tougher penalties and mandatory prison time should be imposed, and owners should be required or certified they have been educated on the use and safety precautions of using and storing a firearm.  “Gun Free” zones are another area that should be explored for its effectiveness.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre on December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut killed 26 people.  Twenty were children between the ages of 6 and 7 years old.  The shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, shot and killed his mother prior to entering the school and gunning down dozens.  A 2014 report by the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate describes the Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, as an “isolated young man with deteriorating mental health and a fascination for mass violence whose problems were not ignored but misunderstood and mistreated” (David Shortell, 2014).  In March 2013, a new police report revealed Adam Lanza possessed a list of 500 of the world's most notorious mass murderers, and was trying to rack up the greatest number of kills in history. 

It was widely reported, by multiple news agencies, that Lanza used legally purchased firearms belonging to his mother.  This is an instance where legally purchased guns fell into the wrong hands and caused a horrific tragedy.  Although the mentally challenged, if documented, would be unable to purchase a firearm, it is not an absolute they would not attempt to obtain a stolen weapon.

This is also an instance where a gunman knew he would be entering an establishment that prohibits weapons on its premises.  This makes for easy prey to an armed criminal.  Virginia Tech University in 2007 and Columbine High School in 1999 are other examples of a weapon being used for mass killings in a gun-free zone.

Each side of the debate has valid points to their argument, which continues to make this a volatile and heated subject.  

At this point in my lifetime I tend to side with the opponents of gun control laws.  With so many variables associated with this topic, my view may alter along with the ever-changing behavior of society.  As gun violence and mass shootings become more frequent, I don’t believe civilians should be defenseless targets to these senseless criminals.  However, I do think there should be some regulations and safeguards in place, in order to avoid even more chaos involving this type of artillery.  

The vast majority of gun violence is due to the person utilizing the weapon, not the gun itself.  In each of the examples above, after thorough investigations, the shooters were determined to either have an altered state of mind, or some kind of psychological deficiency.  Any individual who dreams or fantasizes about killing in the masses, must have some form of mental impairment.  The gun is just the means to accomplish their atrocity.  A bomb or vehicle would provide the same fatal results, but not every person or driver has the capacity to perform such a gruesome and horrendous act.

In conclusion, gun control is necessary for a safe place for all. Responsible and lawful citizens should be able to have the means to protect themselves against predators.  There will always be criminals who break laws.  Our courts and prisons would be empty and futile if not for lawbreakers.  However, a stable and sane state of mind should be a necessary element in your right to bear arms.  More times than not, a person is killed with a gun because they themselves are not in possession of one.  As noted in the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, TX, it was a lawful, armed citizen who stopped the rampage of a crazy, mass murderer.  Ironically, the gunman, Devin Patrick Kelley, had served in the Air Force, but was court-martialed in 2012 on charges of assaulting his wife and child.  He was sentenced to 12 months’ confinement and was discharged in 2014 for “bad conduct”.  He should not have been able to obtain a firearm.  His assault charges and confinement should have prevented such a purchase.  Accidents and errors will inevitably happen.  Criminals will attempt to get around the law.  Mental and psychological impairments will always exist.  Gun control will remain a complex and ongoing debate.
