Should there be more gun laws in the United States of America? This question has been repeatedly asked in American politics after World War II. There are many different demographics, which have many different opinions on the subject. Many tragedies have occurred because of guns that have fueled the debate to become the slugfest that it is today. Lobbying organizations have risen to some of the most powerful positions in the government and are more than likely not going to go away any time soon. Gun laws are so prominent in American politics that the right of ownership is based off the Constitution of the United States of America. When it comes to gun laws I think that we should have moderate restrictions that don’t impede the daily lives of the majority of the population. Guns should be made safer instead of just banned from the public. There should also be other measures that indirectly affect the safety of guns such as mental health and economic stability. Using support from multiple resources it can be seen that guns in America can be safe with the proper laws in place.

The Second amendment of the United States 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.” This amendment in the constitution has been the backbone of the pro-gun argument. The amendment was created for the people so that they can have the ability to overthrow any tyrannical government such as the British monarchy during the revolution. While the second amendment was written in 1791 after the Revolutionary war it, like the rest of the Constitution, has been employed into modern society. Since its introduction into the Constitution weapons became common tools for most Americans up until World War II. After World War II public opinion began to lean to the left as guns were being seen as tools of destruction instead of tools of survival. The use for guns gradually decreased in the daily lives of many Americans. As we entered into modern civilization guns were adapted for the main use of protection. The gun market also began expanding and machine guns and assault rifles were being introduced to the general population faster than any government agency could regulate them. Common sense gun laws were introduced in the 1990’s that put into place restrictions and other ways to keep guns safer. People now required a license in most states and also allowed for policies that either banned the possession of guns in public places or allowed for permits for them to be carried. Guns are restricted from major public places and most dangerous assault weapons are either banned in certain states or have strict laws that regulate them. Gun laws have progressed very gradually ever since their employment in the Constitution.

Gun laws should be moderately strict across the United States. Over the years there have been countless deaths from gun violence. These facts cannot be ignored. Gun violence in America is outrageous and we should be taking measures to reduce it drastically. I think that by making federal gun laws moderately stricter we will be able to do this. By getting rid of loopholes in the law that allow for either mentally unfit or criminals to obtain guns we can stop guns from falling in the wrong guns. Through licensing laws and education reform we can make guns safer and stop criminal activity before it begins. Ammo restrictions and many other laws can help prevent violence and allow gun to protect people instead of harm. Recently gun laws made strides when instead of banning guns the Supreme Court upheld the right to use guns for protection. According to the summary of the decision by the OLR research project they made the decision: “By a five to four margin, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a Washington D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non-law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities”(Rose). This decision allowed for the use of guns for their main purpose. It allowed for people to protect themselves as law-abiding citizens. In 2010 the Supreme Court made another major decision. The OLR also summarized the courts decision in the case: “The central question before the Court, in McDonald, was whether the right to bear arms was a fundamental right protected by the constitution and therefore applicable to the states. The Court held that the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws. Four members of the majority said the 2nd Amendment was applicable because it was “incorporated” in the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, which guarantees that the states may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Rose). This means that since the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment right to possess firearms in Heller v. Washington D.C. was federally legal it also applied to state and city governments because of a clause in the 14th Amendment. These two decisions are very important in the gun law debate because it shows the federal government backing the individual’s rights to bear arms across the nation. While these decisions are critical for gun rights it is not the only thing that can be done to make guns safer in society. 

Gun rights can be protected through many ways. The most direct way is through law reforms. Indirectly guns can be made safer by providing solutions to problems that cause the gun violence that plagues our nation. Mental health is one of the most major problems that can be fixed relatively easily. Many tragedies could have been stopped as reported by the recent study of the NICS: “These laws require federally licensed firearms dealers to confirm a person’s eligibility for purchasing firearms by running a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). However, as became evident in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, most states had not been reporting complete information on relevant mental health histories to the NICS” (Pinals). This problem still exists today but has been improved since the Virginia Tech shootings. While many of these major problems are being fixed there are still many ways for guns to fall into the wrong hands. The gun-show loophole says, “Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks, but not all sellers are required to be licensed” (Sherman). This means that private sellers that don’t need a license are not required to run background checks on buyers. While this “loophole” is hard to find it is still a possibility that guns can be legally sold to someone who is not supposed to have a gun. By creating better laws that close options like this and only allow law abiding citizens to buy guns the public can be protected from possible harm while we still protect the right to own guns.

By the year 2000 the NRA had over 4.1 million members, the most any lobbying organization has ever had at the time. With those numbers they rose to be a great power in the United States Government. The mission of this organization says, “The NRA Foundation, Inc. (NRA Foundation) is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context”(National Rifle Association). This quotation from their website accurately describes their goals as an organization, and their actions represent that statement. The NRA while making good decisions has also been highly controversial on other decisions. In 1999 a terrible tragedy happened at the Columbine High school in Colorado. A NRA convention was scheduled that week in Denver that caused controversy. Even though many thought the event should be canceled the NRA postponed the event one day later but did not change the location. This caused public protests that surrounded the convention and ultimately moved the NRA into the spotlight on many issues. Once President Bush was elected in 2000 and congress leaned slightly to the right the NRA began its biggest campaign yet. By 2005 the NRA had won major victories when the government had passed three laws that protected gun owners. First they stopped public discrimination of gun owners by not allowing police to release gun-tracing data in 2003. Second the NRA persuaded congress to let the 10-year assault rifle ban to expire that was created in 1994 by President Clinton. Finally in 2005 President Bush signed legislation that protected gun dealers from lawsuits in certain situations. The NRA still protects gun rights today in many ways. They hold annual conventions every year where members can come and learn about the organization and firearm safety. The NRA sponsors many wildlife associations many of which are underfunded. They also hold many fundraisers every year and have helped the hunting community in many ways. The NRA is also heavily involved in political campaigns. In 2016 the NRA spent the most money they have ever spent on an election totaling to $52,921,907 spread over multiple candidates. The majority of the contributions were spent on Republican Donald Trump. Though these contributions the NRA helps fund politicians who back the second amendment right and fight for gun rights. The NRA is a controversial group that has helped gun laws in many ways, but also has caused some of the high tensions that plague the debate on gun laws. In order to accomplish their goal but also have a more respectful conversation the NRA should still help fight for gun rights but be more respectful as they do it. If the NRA would do this we as people can get to an agreement faster that helps the public become safer.

Gun violence in America is outrageous. “In 2011, a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes were committed with a firearm” (Planty). This statistic is much higher than it should be. Compared to other developed countries we rank as one of the highest per capita offenders according to research done by the University of Sydney. Unfortunately guns fall in the wrong hands sometimes and are used for malicious purposes that can harm other innocent people. In order to stop that laws have to change. Restrictions have to placed that can prevent someone from purchasing a weapon without being checked out. The National registries such as the NICS have to be updated so that when those checks are done they are accurate. Insuring that places that are vulnerable such as schools and other public centers are safe and protected is also important. Unfortunately in the society we live in today it might be impossible to successfully ban and get rid of all dangerous firearms, but the violence that is caused by those weapons can be drastically reduced if we are able to accomplish these goals. 

While there are many opinions on the debate of gun control, the greatest opposing argument is to ban most guns nationwide. This argument has been part of the left side of American politics since the gun debate began. There are many different opinions on how this method can be done just as there are many different opinions on how gun restrictions should be reduced or be moderate. In 1994 President Clinton signed a bill that placed a 10-year ban on all assault weapons. Over that time period many argued against it and many argued for it. Those that argued against it said the ban doesn’t do what it intends to which was to make the streets safer. They especially argued this after the tragedy at Columbine High school. Ultimately the ban was not renewed in 2004. In the next ten years America has seen more mass shootings than ever before including the most tragic at Sandy Hook elementary school. This has raised questions on whether an assault rifle ban should be implemented again. Overall this argument is completely valid and is still being debated today.

Another argument the opposing side has is to look at the example set by other countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia. In the United Kingdom gun laws are some of the most stringent in the world. A summary on the laws of the United Kingdom from the Library of Congress said, “Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world…. Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission.  Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon.” (Feikert-Ahalt). The extensive amounts of background checks that must be done before a person can buy approved weapons almost completely prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. The example is very convincing but also brings up some other downfalls such while gun rights are reduced other homicide rates increase respectively. Australia, like the United Kingdom, also has stringent gun laws. An article on Australia’s gun policy explained it by saying, “In April 1996, a man with two semiautomatic rifles shot and killed 35 people in Tasmania…. Two months after the event, Australia began putting in place a far-reaching set of gun laws. They are known as its National Firearms Agreement” (Rosen). The subsequent laws after the mass shooting called for control of the  “types of guns people could own”(Rosen) and also “required people to sell to the government any guns that were made illegal” (Rosen). According to recent studies made after the policy was introduced there have been zero mass shootings in Australia. This is another example like the United Kingdom that saw reduction in gun violence after the implementation of the laws in their country, but like the United Kingdom it also saw an increase in other homicide rates of a different weapon. Overall this argument is valid and raises questions that still need to be answered.

The gun debate in America has been going on in America for years and it will more than likely continue go on for many more years. After completing my research on gun laws in America I have concluded that the best option for America is to have moderately strict gun laws that protect the people not only from guns but also protect the peoples rights to have guns. Through major organizations like the NRA we can educate people and push reform through office. We must all follow our civil responsibilities that ensure that the people around us are safe as well as ourselves. Because of the Constitution we not only get to own guns as civilians but we also get to voice our opinions freely. Being able to have free speech allows us to voice our opinions, but we must remember to be respectful when we debate or we begin to become locked in disagreement where no positive change can be done. While these methods directly affect guns in America there also many other ways that we can indirectly help guns in America. Having stronger economic policies that reduce poverty allow people that struggle financially to have more reasonable options than to resort to crime. Focusing attention to the issue of mental health in America also affects guns. We can update registries that sellers use when doing background checks on buyers. We can also update facilities so that they can be better equipped for dealing with people with mental health issues. By doing these we can reduce gun violence around the nation and ultimately become more unified than before. 
