Stricter Gun Control MAG

February 23, 2013
By uhnny1999 BRONZE, Ann Arbor, Michigan
uhnny1999 BRONZE, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1 article 0 photos 0 comments

Did you know that all handguns are semi-automatic? This means that all that stands between you and death is the pull of a trigger. Limited access to handguns would decrease violence, as has been proven in the past by numerous laws. In addition, the mass killings that throw a blanket of loss and sorrow upon our nation can only be done with guns.

The opposing argument – that the Second Amendment applies and gives us the right to possess guns – is not supported with evidence, and is plain hogwash. When the amendment was adopted in 1791, the general public made up the militia to which the amendment refers. By this definition, only the military and other state security groups, such as the National Guard, should possess the right to bear arms.

Many including Kurt Eichenwald of Vanity Fair, believe that “America needs to repeal the Second Amendment.” Those who do not support gun control believe the solution is to allow everyone to have guns for self-defense. Consider, though, how many brawls break out every day. If everyone has a gun, these fights might not end with just concussions and black eyes; more people would die. On the other side of the argument, with more sensible ­reasons, gun control advocates believe firearms should be taken away from the mentally ill and criminals. The endless debating, conflicts and deaths caused by guns is why my state of Michigan should limit access to handguns.

Quite simply, guns cause violence and death. Even though the U.S. populates only five percent of the world, we own almost 50 percent of civilian guns worldwide. Gun control laws help keep the public safe from heavy artillery weapons. Although the laws in place should be stricter, there is sufficient proof that they succeed in protecting the public. According to the Macmillan Social Science ­Library, the 1994 Brady Law, which required background checks and a five-day waiting period for all handgun sales, prompted a ­drastic decline in violence. Aggravated assaults involving guns dropped 12.4 ­percent, violent crimes from guns decreased by 35 percent, and more than 500,000 convicted felons were prevented from purchasing firearms. After the 1989 ban on importing assault rifles, the number of rifles used in homicides fell by 45 percent the very next year!

The number of people affected by gun violence in America is devastating. Their slogan perfectly summarizes the need for stricter gun control laws. “There are too many victims of gun violence because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America.” Their research showed that in 2011, one-fifth of the 100,000 people shot in the United States were children and teens. Currently, background checks do not ­include charges in non-criminal offenses such as domestic violence and mental health. Creating stricter gun control laws would keep guns away from those who may become violent with the possession of a dangerous weapon.

Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Columbine. These mass shootings were all performed with semi-automatic handguns. The shooters had psychological issues. In addition, there have been 70 mass shootings since the attempted assassination of Senator Gifford two years ago. In fact, disputes involving guns have become more and more frequent.

Other devastating outcomes can result from the ­severe trauma of a shooting. In Houston, Texas, several people had cardiac arrests from the stress of a shooting situation. Another consequence is the very grave ­incidents of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). The victims of the Columbine incident had reactions after the killing at Sandy Hook. After a near-death experience, and likely physical injuries, victims are also hindered by psychological issues.

The most important and core democratic value, the right to life, has been violated by loose, lethargic gun-control laws. Since this core democratic value is a right we all possess, each person has the right to the protection of his or her life. Guns endanger lives and deprive us of the first natural right listed in the Declaration of Independence. “We … are endowed … with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Guns have compromised this right to life, and have also deprived us of feeling safe and secure.

As John F. Kennedy put it, “Change is the law of life.” It is time we changed the laws that made it possible for 20 first-graders to die. We must make it much more difficult for anyone with an untreated mental illness, or someone who has been in prison, to buy a gun. Many others are affected by the effects of these mass shootings including those who have lost loved ones. Even if those killed are not our acquaintances, our spirits are struck by a brutal blow. After the killing of five- and six-year-old children, we cannot help but think: What if? What would their lives have been like? What will they never experience? This is why we must limit access to handguns and make stricter gun-control laws, in the state of Michigan, and the rest of the country.



Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 106 comments.


Void27 said...
on Nov. 20 2013 at 12:42 pm
The fact of the matter is that if you make it harder for everyone to own a gun then more gun abuse will break out following the complaing by americans all over, no matter how safe you think we can make this place, no matter how many laws are passed to "try" and stop this from happening, the truth of it is that guns are also sold under the table (meaning there are more then one way to get a gun of any kind) we as kids, we as teenagers, will always get a hand onto a gun because the law cant touch inside a house without breaking a few of its own laws. Think about it like this, as an animal we have only the means to live and survive outside of any safe haven, you can train and train it all you want but the instect to kill or hunt will always drive deep down even if its not meant to be shown, basic human logic

on Nov. 7 2013 at 2:07 am
theTruthReturns, Intercourse, Pennsylvania
0 articles 0 photos 2 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry c.1765

Wow, its not often that i find something that can end debate, but wildfire's response just did it.  That was brilliant!

on Nov. 7 2013 at 1:48 am
theTruthReturns, Intercourse, Pennsylvania
0 articles 0 photos 2 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry c.1765

Not supported with evidence?  How about 222 years of republicanism, the fact that we hold inalienable rights that cannot simply be voted away by the majority?  It is the very thing that makes this country a republic rather than a democratic state!     The 'opposing argument' reads, "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 mere fact that the militia is mentioned in the first half, does nothing to change that it is the PEOPLE whose right to keep and bear arms should not be infringe upon.  Had the authors intended the right to pertain to the militia they would not have explicitly written people!  The authors were only a short time removed from fighting a war against a tyrannical empire, and it was a cobbled militia that eventually defeated the British.  And yes, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but so too is the right for citizens to bear arms against that militia, and the state if they become oppressive tyrants.  This right for the people to defend themselves from external force, either individually or collectively, is as inalienable and sacred as the right to free speech and expression.    Finally the author certainly does his best to inject credibility into this piece by quoting none other than the ‘Constitutional authority’ from Vanity Fair.  It’s about as credible as quoting ESPN as a reputable source on the progressive tax code.  The author is incorrect, the Second Amendment isn’t hogwash, this article is.  

on Oct. 17 2013 at 3:40 pm
JustinNelson BRONZE, Woodbury, Minnesota
4 articles 0 photos 7 comments

Favorite Quote:
Human life without knowledge of history is nothing other than a perpetual childhood, nay, a permanent obscurity and darkness.

Maybe the problem isn't guns. Maybe it's psychotropic drugs being dealt by the pharmacies for made up mental disorders like depression and ADD? Most of the shooters in recent times have been on these drugs and need I remind everyone about when a man snorted bathsalts and ate another man's face off? We live in an addictive reality with some of the most dangerous drugs being dealt by our pharmacies, grocery stores, and just-for-kicks at our fast food pig-toughs (not restaurants).

on Sep. 6 2013 at 10:20 am
TheIdealist SILVER, New York City, New York
7 articles 0 photos 18 comments

Favorite Quote:
"We all die. The goal is not to last forever. It's to create something that does."

The Second Amendment gives all people the right to bear arms, which is only fair. We deserve the right to defend ourselves in life or death situations. But, what happens when people abuse that right? Total looneybirds get a hold of firearms and, before you know it, dozens of innocent people end up dead for no reason just because the law allowed them to pull the trigger. A gun is no toy. We have to find a way to scrutinize gun sales down to a microscopic view. Once 6 and 7 year old children die in their own classrooms by the means of some nutcase, you start to get tired of the petty excuses that people always give.

ASCLEPIUS said...
on Aug. 17 2013 at 5:03 pm
Yeah? Well I wiki'd "single action revolver" and wiki beats google.

SDF_NCO said...
on Aug. 16 2013 at 6:47 pm
Well since you are so convinced of the righteousness of your cause, step up and fight for what you believe in.  Get that gun control you want passed and then join the ranks of those who will risk their lives disarming free Americans such as myself. Then...come and take them!

Erma Gherd said...
on Aug. 16 2013 at 8:26 am
Since this article appears to have been written by a high school student, I won't debate his/her opinions. However, I would like the author to take a moment and read the Michigan State Constitution, particularly Article 1, that defines the right of it's citizens. I assume the author is from Michigan, if not, please read your States Constitution. Most State Constitutions clearly define it's citizens as it's Militia, and as such they are positively included in respect to the 2nd Amendment.      

on Aug. 15 2013 at 9:37 pm
Another good reason to not send your children to the public school system.

jeffgee123 said...
on Aug. 15 2013 at 8:58 pm
The largest school massacre that ever occurred in the United Staes was done with a bomb. It took place in Michigan early in the century, and it was perpetrated by a disgruntled employee of the school. So it really cannot be said that only guns could be used for this type of crime. Klebold and Harris of Columbine fame, had 3 large bombs built for their massacre- 2 in the caferteria and 1 in a car in the parking lot. If they had gone off the death toll would have been catastrophically worse.

on Aug. 15 2013 at 3:44 pm
For information on the largest school massacre, google Bath school massacre. It happened right there in Michigan. The bad guy fired 1 shot from a rifle, into the explosives he had his car packed with. He had planted dynamite in the school its self.    You should also do some research on democide. There have been more people killed by their own governments than all of the wars in the 20th century combined. Compared to Stalin and Mao, Hitler was a amature. He only killed 13 million.  All handguns are not semi-automatic. Revolvers and single shots are very popular with a lot of hunters. Remington and Savage even make bolt action hand guns.  Some research can be a good thing instead of using the Brady talking points. 

Kels said...
on Jun. 23 2013 at 4:24 pm
Whoever posted on May 23 was obviously the same person posting repeatedly. You used the same phrases, many of which I disagree with. When I googled if "all handguns are semiautomatic?", several sources said "yes". Including a very trusting source, Opposing Viewpoints.

SarahK said...
on Jun. 8 2013 at 8:08 pm
The writer could be a girl, you know! So instead of "he", you should have used "they".

Paul53 said...
on May. 25 2013 at 1:05 am
Good writing skills. You misunderstand the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Decleration of Independance. These 3 brilliant documents were written to make clear that power rests in the hands of citizens. The only power the government has, is that given it by the citizens. The 2nd amendment has become more symbolic than practical in that regard, but it still reiterates who has power. If guns cause violence, then pencils cause writing errors, and cars cause accidents. Electricity causes electrocution, too. Keep up the excellent writing, and not all handguns are semi-automatic. Take the time to learn more about guns, take a basic firearms course, do some target practice, and you'll write with a good deal more authority.

Wildfire said...
on May. 24 2013 at 9:30 am
      Sadly, most of this article is only lies and baseless propaganda that just isn’t supported by fact. Washington DC has essentially banned functional gun ownership since 1976. And during the heart of DC’s gun ban, had a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. While just 3 miles away, Arlington, Virginia, where gun ownership is less restricted. The murder rate was just 1.6 per 100,000, less than 3% of the DC murder rate. (“Crime in the United States”, FBI, 1998) Can you actually name the US cities that saw a decrease in their violent crime rates with their enactment of strict gun control laws? The worst massacres in the US didn’t involve guns. And of the massacres in the last 150 years, that I’ve been able to find, where guns were actual involved, that were not committed by the US Government: All happened in “Gun-Free Zones” where only the goblins doing the killing were armed. Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano, former underboss of the Gambino crime family agrees with Mr. Eichenwald of Vanity Fair when he expressed his love for gun control in an interview with Vanity Fair: "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." (Interview with Sammy Gravano in Howard Blum, "The Reluctant Don," Vanity Fair (September 1999), p. 165.) In fact, there may not be so “many brawls break out every day” if the attacker believed the risk was good, that they would get their brains blown out by their intended victim. “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life” -Robert A. Heinlein  Think about it: What new gun control law do you honestly believe those willing to commit rape, robbery and murder would obey? And why don’t we apply them to illegal drugs as well?   Guns prevent violence and save far more lives than they harm. In the US, a gun is used to deter home invasions approximately 498,000 times each year. (Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994. Robin M. Ikeda , Violence and Victims, Winter 1997) In fact, for every accidental death (802), suicide (16,869) or homicide (11,348) with a firearm (29,019), 13 lives (390,000) are saved through defensive gun use. (Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997) What does those numbers tell us? Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant (Criminal Background) Check System (NICS), only 6,700 people (1.25%) were charged for firearms violations.  This includes 71% of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, June 4, 2000) Here’s some food for thought: The police have no duty to protect you.
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order"
(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]). 

This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to *YOU* and *YOU ALONE* to provide it.  

But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?

on May. 24 2013 at 12:31 am
As a writer myself, I enjoyed reading uhnny1999,'s for its style and creative content, but as much as I hate to say it, some of the so-called facts that were asserted in the essay should be rechecked for their veracity. For instance, I like the way the author started the essay with an intended rhetorical question so as to engage the reader to start thinking; however, the truth is that all handguns are not semi-automatic, which opens the door straightaway for critisms by those who support the Second Amendment. So understanding, if the author wants the article to engage and possibly change the mind of someone on the other side of this highly divisive issue,  it is extremely important to not begin the essay with such an easily refuted target. Kudos to the author for standing up for what he/she believes in as well as putting it to print, but even so, making rash, or emtionally derived and untrue statements may only make it easier for those who think differently than the author to minimize his/her work's impact on the reading audience as a hole. Still, all in all this was a good essay and I hope the writer keeps at it for truly "the pen is mightier than the sword," or maybe in this case, it is mightier than the gun.   I'd give it a B-

Ragnar said...
on May. 23 2013 at 10:44 pm
It would help your credibility immensely if you didn't start off blatantly wrong in the first sentence of your article.  Not all handguns are semi-automatic.  And it isn't guns that are dangerous.  It is people who are dangerous. 

Rich7553 said...
on May. 23 2013 at 9:03 pm
This article is riddled with so many factual errors, it can qualify as fiction. The author should have consulted with someone who was famliar with firearms. He also should have used independent sources instead of those slanted to an anti-gun ideology.

eccho said...
on May. 23 2013 at 8:32 pm
Did you know if you choose to do nothing to ensure your own self protection the only thing standing between you're safety and being robbed, raped, beaten, or killed is a criminals lack of motivation to try to hurt you?   Up to 2.5 million people use guns to defend themselves every year. We have 315 million people, and about 300 million guns, and our gun sales are going nowhere but up. Our violent crime, including murders, are at HISTORIC lows. If you don't like guns, fine, you don't have to like them. But saying "guns CAUSE x" is silly. I must have the laziest guns in the world, because I've never seen one of my guns load itself, let alone aim itself at someone and pull it's own trigger. If that ever happens I'll let you know.    You call it a convincing argument because you already agree with it.

DavidT said...
on May. 23 2013 at 7:28 pm
The argument that guns cause violence is false to the core. For this to be true there could have been no violence prior to the invention of firearms. It would also have to mean that no violence could occur without firearms present, proven false by many events in recent history ( British soldier hacked to death). It is the same as saying that spoons cause obesity, pencils cause misspelling amd cars cause drunl driving. Inanimate objects cause nothing and are merely tools to be used at the will of the user, for good or evil. Anything else implies that you are not in control of your own actions.


Parkland Book