In an increasingly violent world, gun control is an imperative debate to have. It is impossible to ignore the facts and overwhelming tragedies due to gun violence, as something needs to change. Despite the opposition, gun laws need more restrictions due to the ease of access to guns, exponential numbers in accidents, homicides and mass shootings, the evolution of society since the 2nd Amendment was created, and the overall safety of the general public that guns put at risk. 

Anyone is qualified to speak about this issue and have an opinion, as it is so prominent in the world today. Not only do most people probably know someone who has died from a gun related incident, but even more people are probably in the presence of a gun or someone who owns a gun every day. One of the biggest problems with gun violence is the fact that guns are too easy to obtain in society. The current system for registering and owning a gun proves to be futile in many cases where guns fall into the wrong persons hands. Regardless of if the gun was legally or illegally obtained, if more restrictions existed on the sale of guns, there would be less guns in general, subsequently decreasing crime. A black market for things like this will always exist, but if harsher laws on the legal sale of guns existed, there would be fewer guns circulating in society. Of course there will always be criminals that are willing to do wrong things, but, with an overall decrease in the availability of guns, there would be less crime. There is also no logical need for assault weapons and excessive magazine capacities, so regardless of if these things make a big change or not, these weapons of mass destruction do not need to be available to the general public. The opposition claims that if American citizens were armed, this method would deter crime - which is completely illogical. If all citizens were encouraged to bear arms, crime would skyrocket. There would be even more accidents and mishaps than there currently are, more opportunities for gun theft, and a lot more unwarranted crime. In addition to that, more citizens being armed immediately makes every conflict that occurs much more dangerous and makes daily tasks like running errands a risky endeavor as so many more citizens would be armed. According to a New Yorker article on gun presence in the United States, “there are nearly three hundred million privately owned firearms in the United States: a hundred and six million handguns, a hundred and five million rifles, and eighty-three million shotguns. That works out to about one gun for every American,” and that is before looking at illegal, unregistered weapons (LePore). This statistic is frighteningly high and just goes to show there are already enough gun-related deaths, between homicides, suicides, accidents, and mass shootings; so adding more guns to the issue is not a solution. 

The statistics of deaths caused by a gun are exponentially increasing and are a demand for change. Guns are used far too nonchalantly in day to day life between freak accidents, altercations with armed police figures, and by citizens towards other citizens for personal motives. There is too much death from these things because too many people have guns that shouldn’t. Owning a gun gives citizens more power than they should hold. Ordinary people walking the streets should not have the power to take anyone’s life in a matter of seconds. A lot of unintentional deaths, accidents, and random homicides occur in daily life because a gun was used when it didn’t need to be, but someone who was armed made a rash decision to use their gun since it was there. In almost all of these situations, a gun didn’t need to be used. Too many unqualified, uneducated and irresponsible citizens own guns. In a recent article from The Trace, shocking statistics regarding gun violence were provided exposing that “12,942 people had been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder,” yet leaving out the 20,000 people who take their lives with a gun every year (Mascia). People who own guns for collecting, sport or hunting are being prioritized over the greater good’s safety as the opposition defends their right to their hobby or collection. However, it is these people who leave their gun unprotected and allow a child to get into it and accidentally shoot it. We cannot allow citizens to bear arms if they will be so foolish and careless with such powerful weapons as to allow “an American child under 12 has died by intentional and accidental gunfire every other day” and “toddlers injure or kill themselves” or “shoot other people” according to analysis by NBC News in the same Trace article (Mascia). It is these people who own rifles and unnecessarily high magazine guns that can easily be stolen or fall into the wrong hands. Stricter background checks and identification requirements for purchasing guns need to be implemented, as well as the banning of military grade weapons and high capacity magazines. It needs to be harder to own a gun. The addition of these potential restrictions is completely reasonable because it does not completely abolish citizen ownership of guns, but rather just makes the process safer and works towards less guns in the world in general. 

The opposing side argues that these potential restrictions would be an infringement upon the fundamental right to bear arms stated in the 2nd Amendment. This is one of the most controversial issues surrounding the debate on increasing gun laws. It’s a common argument from the opposition, but probably the most legitimate and problematic of the counter arguments towards stricter gun control. While most of the other arguments can be refuted in defense of the safety of the greater good, the argument that surrounds the 2nd Amendment is the touchiest of them all because it technically strips citizens of one of the fundamental rights they have as a U.S. citizen and goes against the country’s constitution. It can be interpreted this way, which is why it is a strong counter argument, however, the 2nd Amendment is outdated and it is only logical due to the circumstances to update the amendment in some ways. Several reasons the argument of the 2nd Amendment by the opposition is invalid are presented in the Congressional Digest article, including that the need the for citizens to bear arms “1) is now obsolete, with the presence of professional police forces; (2) was intended solely to guard against suppression of State militias by the central government and is therefore restricted in scope by that intent; and (3) does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but rather one that can be limited by reasonable requirements” (Gun Control Overview). Not only this, but the amendment leaves too much room for interpretation and “is being misread in today’s modern society,” which is why we’re stuck in the position we are in today. 

Because of the time frame in which the amendment was created, it is taking things out of context to say that every citizen is guaranteed the right to bare arms (Gun Control Overview). According to an Against the Current article, the amendment was made when slavery was at its peak in order to give more power to slave owners over their slaves and “may have been extended as a self-defense measure for slave owners who feared uprisings in the 18th century” (Gun Control:). It was also intended for military reasons, as it states the right to bare arms for well regulated militias, not for individuals. Regardless of what standing society was in when the amendment was made, society has evolved enough since the time it was created to justify an amendment not fitting society’s situation anymore. Some argue that it goes against what the U.S originally stood for to change anything in the original constitution, but, it is unreasonable to think that nothing in society would change in the hundreds of years that have passed sine the original constitution was made. The world was extremely different back then in every aspect, so some of the amendments made include aspects that simply just don't fit in society anymore due to circumstances of the current world. When you combine this logic with the fact there was misinterpretation of the amendment initially due to the historical context, and keep in mind that the proposed laws do not completely abolish the amendment but rather adjust it, it invalidates the argument that gun control laws strip citizens of their fundamental rights. 

The current restriction proposals do not completely abolish the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. In fact, all they do is enforce things that should already be common sense to enforce. The proposals suggest stricter background checks, and the prohibition of purchase by people on the FBI watch list. These both seem like they should be givens and that there should be no protest regarding such implications. These propositions wouldn't even affect the people who are anti-gun-control because of it being a hobby or sport to them. Essentially, all that is being pitched is as long as you are not mentally ill or a terrorist, you can own a gun and uphold your right to bear arms. There should be absolutely no protest against the restriction of background checks on gun purchases; it is solely to protect the country and make sure weapons do not fall into the hands of mentally ill people. 

According to a recent Daily Dot “report showing that suspected terrorists were able to purchase over 2,000 guns in a four-year period,” this has happened so many times in the past and been the cause of a mass shooting or homicide and cannot continue (Sankin). Just to name a few, Adam Lanza, the shooter of the Sandy Hook shooting was mentally ill and obtained a rifle. The shooter of the Ohio school shooting was also mentally ill and easily obtained a gun. In regard to mentally ill people obtaining weapons, the opposition claims in a Journal of Criminal Law that “a better solution to reducing gun violence includes offering community programs and preventive training in educational and workplace environments to allow for early detection and intervention” (Wolf). While this seems ideal in theory, it is unrealistic because many times it is hard to tell if someone is mentally ill until after they’ve committed a crime. It is not hard to tighten the background checks and monitor more heavily independent sales and gun shows that create loopholes to such background checks. These loopholes are allowing far too many innocent people to die due to the wrong people easily obtaining guns as “forty percent of the guns purchased in the United States are bought from private sellers at gun shows, or through other private exchanges, such as classified ads, which fall under what is known as the “gun-show loophole” and are thus unregulated,” according to a New Yorker article (LePore). There are proposed restrictions on the recreational ownership of assault weapons, military grade weapons, and certain magazine capacity limitations - but, these things should be a given as well, and still shouldn’t affect those who feel the need to bear arms for protection or for sport. You can protect yourself with a handgun and you can hunt with a shotgun, there is no need for anything more. There is no need for ridiculously high capacity magazines and no need for extremely powerful assault weapons - they are just a recipe for disaster and encourage mass killings. 

The selfish complaints of people who want to use rifles and other weapons for hunting should not be prioritized over the greater good’s safety; these restrictions would allow law-abiding, mentally stable citizens to continue bearing arms or hunting, and would also create a much safer environment with less of these extreme weapons existing in the United States. This is a completely fair proposal, despite the false belief that this debate only has two harsh sides representing “the extremes of the two existing major parties... [being that] Democrats want to confiscate all guns... [and] Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions” (Sankin). With these points in mind, it seems that anyone who objects would fall under one of the categories of people who would no longer be able to buy, selfishly do not want to give up their more severe weapons, or are involved in some illegal gun business. 

It is unacceptable for such reasons to prevent these restrictions from passing when so many people are dying due to gun violence every day. The safety of the entire population needs to be the primary concern. While some may say gun control laws go against the constitution because of the 2nd Amendment, it could be said that ignoring gun violence goes against the constitution more; ignoring the hundreds of thousands of people dying from such malicious and brutal attacks defies everything this nation stands for. Children are dying in mass shootings at schools because mentally ill people are getting their hands on guns and innocent people are being robbed of their opportunity. Even more shameful is the disregard to give the victims justice after they die; we are allowing people to get away with this kind of violence. The United States is not holding up the beliefs of acceptance, opportunity, and safety that they so strongly base their country on. This disgrace was displayed as we “saw a backlash against politicians who offer ‘thought and prayers’ after mass shootings but no legislative action” (Mascia). Groups of people are targeted in violent hate crimes, like the mass shooting in the gay bar in “Orlando, motivated by hate, driven perhaps by mental instability and certainly empowered by a culture of violence,” and the U.S still isn’t doing anything to change gun violence (Clarke). Even in day to day life, from police brutality to unnecessary gun shots to citizens killing each other with guns, people are killed every day by gun shots that are motivated by racism, ignorance and hate. Of course, when police were surveyed in a Police One interview, it was recorded that “respondents say [gun control] would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime” (Avery). Authority opinions are dominating this debate, which is unfair and unrepresentative because the figures of authority want to have the power to bear arms and carry weapons. Especially with recent police brutality, it is not a surprise that they disapprove of potential gun restrictions. We are allowing this kind of discrimination, hate and violence to infiltrate and soil the country’s original ideals. We are portraying a country of people that allow sporadic acts of hate and violence. 

Those who argue against gun control and encourage everyone to be armed in order to protect themselves are only encouraging more violence. Instead of this, we need to become a country that doesn’t feel the need to have a gun in their pocket every time we leave the house. Many European countries have completely banned the sale or ownership of guns to the general public and are in much better standing than us in regards to overall deaths and deaths due to gun violence. In a Vice News YouTube video where people from all over the world are asked about U.S. gun violence, it is made clear that “from a foreign perspective, [guns] are out of hand” (Do). The United States needs to follow this foreign plan and ideal in order to uphold its reputation as the land of opportunity and greatness, because in its current standing, foreigners look at this violence in disgust. 

Restrictions and limitations on guns will make America exponentially more peaceful and safe. Background checks could potentially expose and help the mentally ill in addition to preventing them from owning weapons. This would create for less attacks like the mass shootings we hear of, and would also decrease suicides by gunshots if the mentally ill cannot obtain such weapons. There would be much less violence in the streets of bad areas and cities that are notorious for homicides by guns. With less powerful guns existing for the general public’s use and fewer registered guns in general, there would be less stolen guns used for crime. Stricter laws on relatively minuscule things like child lock would also make for fewer accidents by children or the wrong people, too. 

Ultimately, every argument made by the opposition can be refuted by the safety of the greater good alone. The arguments presented by the opposition are overpowered by the logic and compromise of the arguments presented in defense of gun control. Gun control would inarguably decrease deaths due to gun violence among suicides, homicides, mass shootings, and unintentional deaths. Thought the opposition may believe increasing gun presence and arming more citizens would decrease gun violence, this is illogical to believe and the reality is quite the opposite. High capacity magazines and high power assault weapons are simply not necessary, and the ban on such things seems obvious. The 2nd Amendment is not being infringed upon, as law abiding citizens would still be able to bear arms to an extent. Background checks and restrictions of the mentally ill or terrorists from buying weapons is simply foolish to argue against. Only those who wrongfully use guns would be affected by such restrictions, making gun control the logical choice. These restrictions only affect a small population. 

With gun restrictions, those who use guns safely can continue using guns safely while the safety of the population simultaneously increases due to minor implications and limitations; it is a fair compromise. The statistics show that gun violence is at an all-time high and demands change. The proposed restrictions are so minuscule and affect so few people but will make such a significant impact for the better. The greater good should always prevail in debates like these, and the safety of the population is the greater good in this case. The United States should and can become a safer place, and things will only get worse from here if these changes are not made. 
