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.


lovely22 said...
on Feb. 15 2015 at 9:31 am
This comment is extremely offensive, and also highly irrelevant. If you actually want to accomplish something by commenting, you should at least stick to debating gun control!

jezrar said...
on Feb. 12 2015 at 9:40 pm
jezrar, Miramar, Florida
0 articles 0 photos 4 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible"

Thing is, the people who legally obtain guns are not the problem. It's those who (more likely than not) *illegally* obtain them. Who are these people? These are your murderers, your psychopaths, etc. Like the guy below me said, if someone has an insatiable desire to kill, they will find a way. The guns are not a problem. Guns help us "regular" folks defend ourselves and feel "safe and secure." Now I don't personally own a gun (nor does anyone in my family), but I firmly believe that if a citizen of the United States of America wants to own one to assuage their fears or uncertainties concerning their surroundings and the world around them, they are absolutely entitled to.

on Jan. 15 2015 at 2:03 pm
CNH11967 BRONZE, Mason, West Virginia
1 article 0 photos 1 comment

Favorite Quote:
Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears.
-Edgar Allan Poe

The accusation that guns are the reason that mass killings and violence occurs is absurd. Yes, guns are a weapon, but the truly lethal killer is the person who is holding the gun. The world would still have killings, violence, and hatred without guns. If someone really has the urge to kill they will, whether it’s with a gun or not. People don’t realize that there are other sources of weapons besides guns. If you blame the gun for the killings, then you obviously need to check your morals. Taking away the gun amendment isn’t going to stop people from having guns, believe it or not. If a person wants a gun they will do anything to get their hands on one. Teenagers are under age, but that doesn’t stop them from drinking. Drug addicts still do drugs even though they are illegal. Taking away the right to bear arms is like telling a teenage girl not to date a certain boy. She is just going to go behind her parents’ backs to date that boy. The right to bear arms has been a way of life for some Americans and to take it away from them is ludicrous. In the article, it said, “There are too many victims of gun violence because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America.” I agree that dangerous people shouldn’t be given deadly weapons, but why would we deprive the well-behaved citizens of the right to bear a gun. Having a weapon makes some people feel safe. That’s a right in itself, the right to live unafraid. I agree that there should be stricter control on guns, but getting rid of the guns is not the solution to the problem. I also agree with the statement in the article about people with certain mental illnesses shouldn’t have guns or any access to guns. You have to consider all factors of the crime including the person who committed it, not just the weapon they chose to use. Mass destruction can be applied in many forms and ways, not just one.

juygdyj said...
on Dec. 15 2014 at 3:26 pm
hes talking about handguns. read what he posted then you could start talikng

Mikey123 said...
on Dec. 12 2014 at 3:34 pm
hes talking about hand guns

Wildfire said...
on Dec. 4 2014 at 1:30 am
BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! Well stated!

LarryArnold said...
on Dec. 3 2014 at 1:27 am
[The mass killings...can only be done with guns.] The three worst mass killings in the U.S. over the last 25 years were gun-free. Happyland Night Club, firebomb; Murrah Building, truck bomb; 9-11, box cutter. [One-fifthof the people shot in the U.S. were children and teens.] And the vast majority were 17 to 19 year-old gangbangers. [Disputes involving guns have become more and more frequent.] The violent crime rate, including crimes involving firearms, has been dropping since 1993, even as gun ownership and the number of concealed handgun licensees has been increasing. [It's time we changed the laws that made it possible for 20 first-graders to die.] Absolutely. Abolish the fake "gun-free" zones where school shootings happen.

Hilarious said...
on Dec. 2 2014 at 8:18 pm
Outstanding troll 10/10 would read again

teebonicus said...
on Dec. 2 2014 at 7:42 pm
Unfortunately, you have been thoroughly mis-educated. The Bill of Rights guarantees INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS from government abuse. The Second Amendment guarantees the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.   "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that so much of what they know is wrong." - Ronald Wilson Reagan

SamAdams1776 said...
on Dec. 2 2014 at 2:58 pm
Some inportant points:   1. We don't get any rights from the Bill of Rights: it's purpose according to its own preamble is to restrict government. The rights are assumed as natural, pre-existing rights, so repealing any of the Bill of Rights would not remove that which is natural adn pre-existing; it would simply mean the government was hostile to our natural rights--not actually give it authority it cannot have--since government is not the author of our rights in the first place. 2. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the prohibition on government is total--and please note, while individuals may exercise both powers and rights; governments may exercise only powers--so the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right--all people are members of the unorganized militia (c.f. Title 10 USC Ch 13, Sec 311 (b)(2). The militia of Art I Sec 8 is the Army--no need to address that in the 2A. ALSO, the Subordinate clause of the 2A does not limit the right, it simple expresses ONE reason--not the SOLE reason for the ENUMERATION of that right. The actual statement of the right (of the people) is in the independent clause.   Finally, natural rights we have because we draw breath--they are not subject to the democratic process (well, if at least if we RESPECTED our rights and the limitiations placed on government--which we clearly do not), nor to arguments grounded in social utility.   The doctrine of prior restraint is unacceptable in a free society--An armed population is meant to be a check and balance against oppressive government--attempting to restrict the kinds of arms I would need to restrain a tyrannical government, is evidence of the need for armed rebellion.   I realise you all want to be safe. No one has that right, because it can't be guaranteed. I can't stop evil. I can't stop evil people from harming people. I can only minimize it by guaranteeing you have the means to counter it with weapons.   Evil exists. You need to have the guts to defend your own lives and property.   Some sound advice from a founder:     Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? ...Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. “ ---Tenche Coxe, Feb. 20, 1788.   Another piece of advise: Government is not to be trusted, particulary with having the monopoly on force--not if you want to remain free long   "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." --Daniel Webster (1782-1852)   v/r SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
Molon Labe
No Fort Sumters
Qui tacet consentit
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset.

TXhypno said...
on Dec. 2 2014 at 2:01 pm
A couple commenters have made the erroneous statement that you have to pull the hammer back on a revolver in order to fire it.  Almost all revolvers are "double action" which means all you have to do is pull the trigger to fire.  Single action, like the old Colt .45, are the only ones where you must first pull back the hammer.

Hotdog11 said...
on Dec. 2 2014 at 1:57 pm
There are so many things wrong with this students thoughts it would take a week to explain it correctly. Whereever gun control has been tried violent crime increases. Thsat is true in England as an example. That is the violent crime they admit to is 3 to 4 times ours and the highest in Europe, Go ahead kids disprove it. You can't.

FrankInFL said...
on Dec. 2 2014 at 1:47 pm
I beg your pardon...  Facts don't have to be right?   You're not serious  If you're a teacher, you are committing malpractice.

Sen. Daniel patrck Moynihan used to say "You're entitled to your own opinion.  You're not entitled to your own facts."   Yes, by God, facts do have to be right.

FrankInFL said...
on Dec. 2 2014 at 1:42 pm
If gun owners were as ignorant, callous, vicious, venal, and violent as the anti-gun crowd (and this article's author) always depict us bodies would be stacked like cord wood on street corners from coast to coast (and they're not).  In the process of getting there, the species H. armatus would become endangered (at least) or extinct.  NRA members, being (on the whole) heavily armed, would find themselves the first demographic to go extinct as they kill each other off daily. Clearly, this petulant name-calling is merely an ad hominem attack by one more unthinking opponent.  He ought to encourage us to kill ourselves off; we would solve his problem for him!  Further, who in their right mind would annoy such a dangerous beast by trying to take away their firearms?

HacobJidalgo said...
on Nov. 3 2014 at 10:52 pm
Saying guns cause violence is like saying "all white people are fat", because its not true and it would never be true, because it depends on the user, I agree on the stricter policies part, but I still don't understand why people should ban video games or ban certain music because this makes people go balistic and go rouge and start killing off everybody one by one. In fact I dissagred with you from the start. Good day to you sir or mam.

Hammer80 said...
on Oct. 30 2014 at 10:57 am
Your very first sentence is false, and not all handguns are semi automatic. Semi Automatic means 1 pull of trigger, 1 bullet is fired. Glock makes several fully automatic handguns that are not easily accessable to the public. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 makes automatic firearms, semi automatic converted to fully automatic firearms, illeal. This means that any full auto firearm manufactured in the US or imported to the US before May 19, 1986 is legal for anyone who is willing to pay a one time $200 tax stamp (per firearm) to own a full auto or burst fire gun.

on Oct. 17 2014 at 1:31 am
Saying that guns cause violence is like saying that pencils make mistakes, cars drive drunk, and spoons made oprah fat! and my tip for all people using this website for school stuff, dont'! talk to professionals please.

on Sep. 19 2014 at 10:28 am
The only thing that's hogwash is the thought that taking away guns could actually work. For instance, if you took away all registered guns, who would have guns at all? Criminals. You know, the people who actually commit crimes? You can not just say "Give me your guns" and expect one person to give you all the registered/unregistered weapons. 

Yoloswag said...
on Jun. 3 2014 at 9:08 pm
It's not the education that he is truly attacking. It's the lack of effort the author put into researching this paper. A quick 20 minutes of googling will show correlations between stricter gun laws and higher violent crime, the definition of a semiautomatic hand gun, the facts surrounding the prohibition of firearms in the aurora, sandy hook, columbine, and VT shootings.

Islandman said...
on Jun. 3 2014 at 9:02 pm
Ok I'm writing a paper on this as well, and will dispute the authors stance on the issue of stricter gun laws as a nice engaging warm up. (Author is pro gun control) 1. Not all hand guns are semi-auto, (see revolvers, and derringers.) Remember old western movies where the cowboys had to use there thumb to pull the hammer of there revolver back before they can shoot the bad guys. 2. The militia and the military were/are not the same. Author appears to purposely misinterpret the second amendment. Per the U.S Supreme Court "The right besets in individuals not merely collective militias." See also rights of self defense - English common law. 3. The author generalizes gun owners and speculates on their views regarding the solution to gun violence. Author also implies that guns present during brawls and fights would lead to increased shootings. I strongly Disagree. Consider the damage someone could do with a knife, bat, axe, automobiles, or homemade explosives. The firearms are not the cause of escalation. In this logic cops would have officer involved shootings daily. Rational men understand the difference between fighting someone and killing some one. In the conclusion, the author claims everyone has a right to life. Does the author understand just how many individuals are killed and seriously injured in these "brawls" without firearms being involved. Should these victims not have the right to protect the selfs from aggressors bigger badder and stronger then them. 4. Author states that "guns cause violence and death". I disagree. How many criminal charges have been filed against inanimate firearms? Tell me what does a firearm enter as a defense. Guns do not cause deaths anymore than fire extinguishers cause fires. The author drew a correlation, but stopped at that. In countries that have strict gun laws (similar to what the author proposes) have a strong correlation that decreasing firearms coincides with a increase in violent crime rate. (See Australia, UK) 5.author suggests that stricter gun laws would make it difficult to obtain firearms. Last time I checked criminals don't buy there firearms legally. This is more of a criminology topic. 6. Newtown, Aurora, Virginia, and Columbine were used as examples of terrible massacres at the hands of people with guns. These 4 locations also share another thing in common. Law abiding citizens were already prohibited from possessing firearms even for self defense. (School, movie theater, college, school) the author uses the "what if" lead, in the conclusion to get readers thinking of other possible outcomes in which stricter gun laws could have saved lives. But "what if" there was fathers in that theater with there own firearms to defend themselves. What if teachers at the schools and college were allowed to carry their own CW. 7. Author concludes that because everyone "has the right to protection", and that stricter gun control laws can help keep people safe. But ultimately this will do more harm than good. Law abiding citizens will have a difficult time protecting themselves because the difficulty they will have obtaining firearms for self defense. Whereas criminals don't normally buy there weapons legally. (Black market, theft, person to person sales). ultimately as the U.S Supreme Court came down with a opinion that"police have no duty to protect you and your family, it is the duty of the individual. This finding alone is as strong a argument as any. If the police won't show up to protect you from the armed robber at your door, then what would a rational man do? Criminology major. Sorry if grammar is botched I need to start my real paper.


SciArc

MacMillan Books

Aspiring Writer? Take Our Online Course!