It seems like every day I wake up, there is another news report highlighting an incident in which guns were used to injure or kill innocent humans in The United States of America. These incidents are becoming a regular occurrence in our country, and many of our legislators are turning their backs on these issues. They are treating these murders with the attitude that there is nothing to be done, but that is simply not the case. It is utterly disgraceful that we are one of the most developed, wealthy, and intelligent countries on this planet. Yet, out of the various world powers, we lead in many categories such as gun violence and murders executed with a firearm. This is simply unacceptable; for how advanced a society we are, there should be laws in place, and actions taken, to drop these ridiculously high crime and murder rates. Will we ever be able to completely eliminate gun related crimes and murders? Absolutely not, and it would be naïve of us to think so, but if we take the right approach and push our legislators to create laws that make our country a safer place, then we will certainly be taking a step in the right direction. Now, there are many directions that we can go as a nation with regards to gun control and gun rights. There is the popular NRA theme of leaving all the rules exactly the way they are and changing nothing, which has not provided us with ideal results. There is also the far-left wing idea that we should remove all guns from our society, which has had absolutely no historical success. Lastly, we could encourage both parties to work together to find some common ground in enacting new gun law legislation. Obviously, the latter of the three choices is the one in which we should focus our greatest efforts. After some extensive research on various propositions for laws regarding every aspect of firearms you could imagine, I determined three easy, and fairly uncontroversial steps that could be taken to limit gun related murders in this country. The three key steps are, creating stricter mental health screenings that are required for the purchase of a weapon, banning those persons on the no-fly list from purchasing a firearm of any kind, and ending talks of creating a national gun registry. Though those steps are not but a drop in the ocean of the things that need to be done to make this country a safer place, they will provide a starting point for the future regulation of firearms in America. 

“Since 1966, the United States has had 90 mass shootings. In second is the Philippines, with a total of 18” (Willingham, CNN). I provide you with this statistic to show the large disparity between our country, who leads the world in mass shootings, and the second-place country, which falls 72 mass shootings behind us. This number of mass shootings is inexcusable, but while shootings have risen in the United States over the past 30 years, there is one argument that resounds within every person that is a proponent of stricter gun purchasing laws. That argument is the one that our government must take the necessary steps to preventing persons with certain mental illnesses from purchasing a firearm legally. The most popular proposal is for the government to institute stricter and more extensive mental health screenings that a person must go through to purchase a weapon. The first step the government could take would be to make it a requirement that whenever a transaction is completed with a firearm that a background check and mental health check be performed. Currently, in many states there is something “Known as the ‘gun show loophole’ most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks” (Governing). This is quite disturbing, specifically because 92% of Americans believe that if you purchase a weapon that you should go through a background check (fivethirtyeight.com). While our representatives continuously ignore a clear majority opinion from the people they represent due to the influences of lobbying efforts, we must continue the pressure to be sure that the will of the people is heard. Many will ask, how should the government go about instituting stricter mental health screenings and background checks? The answer is not a simple one, nor is it easy, but if we are able to limit the number of deaths related to gun violence, who are we to not try? The process would appear very simple on paper. If a customer wishes to purchase a weapon from a store licensed to sell weapons or from a private dealer at a show, they must provide their social security number and some form of government identification. Once the seller obtains that information from the purchaser, they will have a phone number to call in which they will relay the purchaser’s identification information and the government operator will run a 5-10 minute background check while the seller is on the phone. If there are no red flags regarding any past criminal history or mental health history, then the seller will have the ability to sell the firearm to the purchaser. If the operator does not approve the sale and the seller sells the weapon anyway, the seller will have their FFL license (a license that allows a person or company to sell firearms) taken away and will receive a hefty fine. Some will ask how do we know if the seller sells the weapon anyway? Simple, there is already checks in place for every gun sale in the United States, and most states require a decrease in inventory to be reported. If we were to see a certain establishment decreasing their inventory consistently without recording it, they would be fined. Now, if our politicians are truly passionate about limiting gun violence related deaths, they will take the necessary steps with mental health screenings. These mental health screenings need to be a requirement when an individual is attempting to acquire a semi-automatic weapon, whether it be a shotgun, rifle, or pistol. How can the government make these screenings a requirement without infringing on the rights of its people? I do not have a definite answer to that question, but along with the rest of the American people, I hope that they find a way to institute it soon. There are too many incidents in which someone has obtained a weapon that they should not have been allowed to. Sam Collins of Think Progress puts in plain words, “A decade of documented mental health issues didn’t preclude John Russell Houser from purchasing a handgun from an Alabama pawn shop last year. That gun would later be used in a lethal assault against moviegoers during which Houser shot 11 people — two of whom died — before taking his own life” (Collins). With having personal experience with a mass shooting (The Charleston Nine) I have seen how a simple mental health screening could have denied Dylan Roof, another person with documented mental health issues, the ability to purchase a weapon that he killed nine innocent people with.

With any controversial topic, there will always be a counter-argument against why something should not be passed or should not become a law. The argument against instituting universal background checks for all legal gun transactions is that the background check violates the purchaser’s personal rights of the second amendment. This argument is a common one and it is used frequently by staunch second rights supporters. I would like to show why this argument should be taken out of the conversation, as it should not be considered in the discussions we are currently. When you attempt to obtain your driver’s license, you must take a written exam, and you also must take a road test with a licensed instructor. We make this a test or “check” of your abilities to operate a vehicle because we recognize the danger of being able to operate a vehicle. The danger lies in the fact that a car is a very powerful tool, and is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. So why would we not take the same precautions when providing someone with a tool that is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than a car? We should be checking to see if the people that are purchasing these weapons are mentally “fit” and that their mental abilities are strong enough to where they would not be a danger to the public. It is inexcusable that someone must take two separate tests to operate a car, but does not even have to go through a background check to purchase a weapon. Secondly, is the argument against stronger mental health screenings. The two main arguments against this proposal is that it discriminates against people that have mental health illnesses, and the question as to what mental illnesses should be on the list that deny you access to purchase a weapon. With regards to the argument that we should not discriminate against those that have a mental illness, I agree that with nearly every other aspect of life we should do our best to be inclusive and accepting of those that are different than us. Yet, when it comes to handling a firearm that could rob someone of their right to live, we must draw a line. It is terrible that it has come to this in our society, but there are certain illnesses that people have that should not allow people to own a firearm. The next question, what are those illnesses? Again, this is something that is up to our representatives in the government, and I am not a psychologist nor will I ever be. I believe that we need to get a panel of the highest regarded psychologists in the world, and have them develop a list of mental illnesses that they deem dangerous enough to prevent someone from obtaining a weapon. Obviously, there are certain mental illnesses that most certainly do not need to be on the list. Some of those include depression, anxiety, ADHD, and many other common non-harmful illnesses. On the flip side there are a few that most certainly need to be on the list such as schizophrenia. Is this a perfect way to address this issue? Absolutely not, but there is no way that will perfectly address the complex issue that we have with guns in our country.

The second step that our government must take if they wish to reduce gun-related crime in the United States would be to not allow persons on the no-fly list to purchase any type of weapon legally. For one to be able to properly understand how this is an issue and why it needs to be taken care of, the no-fly list must first be explained. The no-fly list was created in 2001 after 9/11, and it serves as a list that fluctuates with its number based on reports from threats and intelligence. If a person is on this list, they are prohibited from boarding a commercial airplane for travel in, within, or out of the United States. For many citizens of our country, it seems to be a simple issue that should have been taken care of quite a long time ago. If someone is deemed too dangerous to board a commercial airplane, there is no way that they should be allowed to purchase a firearm of any sort. When politicians are asked why this is a law that has not been put into effect, they give a long, adjective loaded answer. What they won’t tell you is that they would also like to see this become a national law, but due to their inability to agree and the egos that each one of them possesses, this simple yet effective idea has not come to fruition. To give an example of how this law could have saved innocent lives, we need not look far. In the wee hours of the morning on Sunday June 12th, 2016 the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States occurred. This horrific event happened at the Orland Pulse Nightclub, where the shooter came in with an assault rifle and pistol. After he was finished, the attacker had killed 49 patrons of the club as well as himself. Lastly, the shooter, Omar Mateen, was on the FBI’s No-Fly List. As a direct quote from a news source, “the government placed him in the Terrorist Screening Database, more commonly known as the terror watch list” (Berman, The Atlantic).  Yes, you read that last sentence correctly. The man that committed the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States of America, was deemed too dangerous to board on aircraft. Yet, he was allowed to purchase two weapons legally from a gun shop. The fact that this incident has not inspired legislators to act is disheartening. It appears the only way to prevent a situation like this from occurring again will be constant pressure from the public until a law that requires persons on the No-Fly list to not be allowed to purchase any sort of firearm goes in affect.

With nearly ever argument, there is usually a counter-argument that carries some weight to it. Even with regards to some of the most debated topics in the country (sports and politics) there is almost always an opposing side that has some type of reason. While this usually is the truth, it is not for this political argument. When the United States Government deems someone too dangerous to board any type of airplane traveling within, out of, or in The United States, there is absolutely no question that they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. The LA Times summed up the issue best, stating “We bar habitual drug users, people under restraining orders for stalking and domestic violence, and dishonorably discharged veterans.  Suspected terrorists, however, are allowed to buy as many guns as they want” (Edgar, The LA Times). Our elected lawmakers continue to ignore this issue, and if we as citizens of this country do not take a stand, there will be more mass shootings by persons on the suspected terrorist list that purchased guns legally. 

There are many different opinions and ideas on how the United States should take care of their issues with regards to gun violence and gun-related crimes. Some, such as the NRA, push for less gun restriction. There are others that choose the opposing side, pushing for totally removing guns from our society. One of the popular ideas from progressive legislators is the idea of a national gun registry. The common characteristics of this proposal would be to compile a national database of all weapons sold before a set time period (most likely 1980-1990) and continue to keep record of all guns sold in the country, whether it be from a gun show or a gun shop. On paper, this idea appears to be a good first step in addressing the issues that thwart The United States, but once one looks at the idea off paper, the proposal drops off very quickly. As the Cato Institute states, “Mass prohibitions of guns or gun components or accessories invite a repetition of the catastrophe of alcohol prohibition” (Kopel, The Cato Institute). The first issue that one would encounter with registering every legally weapon purchased, one would encounter resistance from many of the gun owners around the country. A large population of the country has large issues with trusting our government, and it could become quite the hassle for our government to register every gun owned. When meeting resistance, the government will have to invest millions of dollars in travel, personnel, technology, and equipment to be sure that every weapon is registered. Australia is one country that experimented with a weapons buyback program, where “they removed around 700,00 guns which ended up costing the country around 500 million dollars” (Sterbenz, Business Insider). 700,000 guns in Australia, with regards to population, is equivalent to around 40 million in the United States, resulting in a very costly experiment. If, and this is an incredibly large if, the United States Government could accomplish this feat, they would be approaching very dangerous territory. Typically, when countries in the world register the weapons that their citizens own, they ultimately end up confiscating those weapons from the individuals because they can keep track of every one. If the United States decided to remove firearms from society, mass hysteria would ensue. If the United States was to remove all the guns purchased legally, they would not help the current problem, but ultimately create an entire other monstrosity of a problem. One of the main reasons that Japan never attacked America with foot soldiers on the homeland in World War II is best summed up by one quote, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass” (Admiral Yamamoto, 1942). This quote is direct from the head Admiral of the Japanese Navy, in which he is discussing the presence of weapons within the general population of the United States. If the United States were to remove weapons from gun owners in the U.S. they would be disarming the largest standing army in the world. They would be taking away a billion-dollar industry that is the hunting industry. Lastly, they would take away the second right guaranteed to the inhabitants of this country from our forefathers, the right to bear arms.

Clearly, with regards to the recent history of our country, something must be done with the large amount of gun-related violence and deaths involving a firearm in the United States. As President Obama said, “the US is the only advanced country in the world that sees these mass shootings every few months" and "this type of mass violence does not happen in other developed countries” (Sterbenz, Business Insider). The trend of waking up every six months and hearing of another mass murder must stop. Every day, I wake up and realize how blessed I am to live in a country as great as this one. Yet, when I hear stories of people being allowed to purchase weapons legally then using them to take innocent lives, it becomes increasingly difficult to feel the same pride in my country. There is change that needs to be made, and that change must begin with the citizens of this great country. I myself do own firearms, I actually own 13. Some may find it interesting that I am pleading with Americans to push their elected representatives to strengthen rules regarding guns in our country, when I appear from the outside to be a big gun enthusiast. I do love my guns, and I love to use them for the activities that they were intended to be used for. I do not want to see them to be used to take innocent lives, I specifically do not want to see them take lives when the sale of the weapon to the individual could have been prevented in the first place. It starts with us, the citizens of the United States. We must use our voice, and our vote, to outweigh the power and monetary influence that the lobbying groups in Washington have. If, we as a nation come together to push our legislators, we can achieve progress. If not, I fear what the headlines in our national newspapers could read tomorrow morning.
