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.


on Dec. 22 2017 at 8:17 am
22rbhattacharyya GOLD, State College, Pennsylvania
17 articles 2 photos 13 comments

Favorite Quote:
Among my most prized possessions are words that I have never spoken -Orson Scott Card

@ktribbey6 Totally agree... just read the Bill of Rights (2nd amendment uhny

ktribbey6 said...
on Oct. 19 2016 at 3:34 pm
ktribbey6,
0 articles 0 photos 1 comment
guns aren't the problem it's mentally unstable people who shouldn't have them killing people just because a gun looks scary doesn't mean it is more lethal this essay right from the get go is completely stupid.

on Oct. 10 2016 at 7:19 pm
Monsieur_Sam SILVER, Greeley, Colorado
5 articles 4 photos 8 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Write drunk; edit sober." Ernest Hemingway

Even though I disagree with you, congratulations on a well written article! My only problem was the accuracy of your second amendment claim. The second amendment 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." In your argument, you overlooked the part of keeping a free state, which is impossible without guns. I would have liked to see a counter to that argument. But very well written! Even though I don't agree, you stated your belief wonderfully!

on Sep. 21 2016 at 7:21 pm
KingCheetah GOLD, Miami, Florida
12 articles 1 photo 4 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Mankind is governed by its imagination" -Napoleon Bonaparte

I would like to respectfully disagree on your stance concerning gun laws. I believe in stricter gun laws, more thorough background checks, and a ban on any and all military grade guns. However, there are multiple reasons why some guns, handguns hunting rifles/ shotguns should remain available (although restricted). First is the economy. A ban on guns would cause a massive part of the gun producing industry to disappear. That means anyone who has a job in this industry now has to pack up and look for another job. Second is enforcement. If someone really wanted to get a gun, they'd get it through illegal means. Use the Prohibition Era as an example. The demand for guns, just like the demand for alcohol at the time, will not drop. In fact, it may even increase. Now you have to deal with criminals who want to buy guns for malevolent needs and people who want the guns for a plethora of other reasons that doesn't involving killing people. The amount of crime that would result will be substantial and with the public already against cops enough as it is, I don't imagine it would be easy for law enforcement to actually carry out this ban. Third is practicality. There are people who use guns for recreational purposes such as bird hunting, skeet shooting, target practice, etc. I'm sure you can agree with the concept of 'Do not generalize a large group of people over the actions of a select and isolated few.' I believe this same concept should be applied here. The actions of a few and psychologically isolated few should represent the reputation of the entire group. A ban on guns not only affects the target population (criminals) but it also affects everyone else, which is largely disproportionate. You are much more likely to come across a lawful, licensed, gun user, than a psychopath. But let's suppose you do come across a psychopath, which brings me to my next point, self defense. If this supposed psychopath, that you have just is anything like the ones in the recent mass shootings, he/she isn't looking to enact revenge on one individual. He/she wants to kill as many people in as little time as possible. An AK-47 can allow that, but a shotgun or a double barrel that can only hold a few bullets can't. People can easily tackle to culprit when he decides to reload. A handgun can hold a larger clip of course but the handgun is also useful in plenty of aspects. While the handgun is indeed dangerous, the benefits it holds as a form of self defense far outweigh the risks (which can be minimized by the aforementioned stricter background checks). A ban on handguns means that you'll only have your kitchen knife with you in case of an armed home invasion and that's assuming you can get to from your bed to your kitchen before the robbers sniff you out. A ban on handguns means can no longer defend herself if a lustful stranger at the bar decides he can't keep it in his pants. There are plenty of other problems that might arise with a ban on guns that I fear people may not be considering when proposing a gun ban. One more thing I think I should add. It is also important to think ahead, and I mean very far ahead. America, as stated in this essay, own's about 50% of all civilian arms in the world. That present an extremely important strategy when it comes to war. Yes, there hasn't been a war on American soil since the Civil War, but that doesn't mean it can't happen in the future by an aggressor that perhaps goes by the name of Russia (if they've got the balls to challenge the UN and invade the Ukraine, you better believe they'll have the balls to declare war against the US if things get too hot). Have such a large population of veterans and a high concentration of military armaments in the hands of the civilian populace means that anyone who even dares to invade American soil will meet unbearably stiff resistance from any form of occupation which will not only serve to protect our nation from complete disaster but also to protect occupied areas from being completely sapped of all vitality. To conclude, I want to restate that I am indeed in favor of stricter gun laws/ background checks and a ban on any military grade weapons but a complete ban on guns won't do much other than hurt us. I hope my argument has came to see its point through and through.

on Aug. 19 2016 at 12:08 am
RynOcerous SILVER, Hockessin, Delaware
6 articles 0 photos 3 comments

Favorite Quote:
"This pale blue dot is where I make my stand" ~ Carl Sagan

This is a teen submitted article on a website that is an echochamber for teenage opinions... What did you expect?

TheTrinster said...
on May. 16 2016 at 6:22 pm
Could anyone link me an article/essay where the author actually has any factual knowledge on firearms

on Apr. 3 2016 at 11:40 am
jesseshook.js,
0 articles 0 photos 2 comments
not unless you give every gun seller a sheet of all of the people who cannot purchase a gun.

on Apr. 3 2016 at 11:38 am
jesseshook.js,
0 articles 0 photos 2 comments
I agree with you

on Mar. 31 2016 at 9:34 pm
danielasanchezdiaz,
0 articles 0 photos 1 comment
I strongly agree with your opinion. The second amendment is misread by those who use it like an excuse to spread hate and fear in humanity. Guns are not the solution.

Julia said...
on Mar. 21 2016 at 5:19 pm
I love this very informative, non hateful reply! Thanks for thinking before typing. :)

GraSled said...
on Feb. 10 2016 at 3:50 pm
GraSled,
0 articles 0 photos 1 comment
I see your point. But these people we call criminals are called that for a reason. They will always find ways to get to guns. Through a friend or in the black market. All stricter gun laws will do is prevent people that use them right, weather for sport or personal defence, from being able to obtain them. Also, not ALL handguns are semi-auto. Most of them are, true, but there are some that you reload after firing every projectile. And Revolvers aren't (technically) considered semi-auto.

on Feb. 7 2016 at 8:59 pm
another exellent point, in addition to bombs gasoline gas baby carrigages bath tubs fists clubs automobiles etc. etc. etc. and if you want to talk about people getting killed, not that our mopct crittically important Right is "dependent" on that which of course it is not, then this anti Rights writer in her article should have some non biased correct data to also include in her anti rights article that did not contain any which is in one "WEEK" , doctors kill MORE people than criminals who misuse guns, cops & legitimate gun owners kill in saving lives &/or justifiably, in ten years all COMBINED!

on Feb. 7 2016 at 8:53 pm
Right free people own guns slaves don't

on Feb. 7 2016 at 8:52 pm
totally exactly, that is so0o so0o very accurately true, & another thank U from the 3/4 of freedom loving loyal patriotic very armed legitimate law abiding genuine American citizens

on Feb. 7 2016 at 7:43 pm
if a murderer or a terrorist or any criminal who just broke into your house was about to 'aim at you or your family.."pull the trigger", "bring about you or your family's death," "maim them" &/or "change your & your family's quality of life" [if their was any life or "quality" left that is, i strongly suspect that what you catagorize as being "an advocate of gun control" [for "criminals" but not for us law abiding legitimate citizens who have every right loyalty, patriotic duty obligation not to mention RIGHT to KBA, please try & think what you are "advocating" here & don't just blindly become brainwashed by the usual evil anti Rights Tyrants in our gov. & wish for something so evil viciously dangerous & lethal to our freedoms liberties & our very free country, which you would so astoundingly come to regret when it would be too late to reconsider.

on Feb. 7 2016 at 7:33 pm
& another Thank U & another complete agreement in total~!!!

on Feb. 7 2016 at 7:31 pm
really good & accurate reply. maybe the writer will at least come to some sensible conclusions now & will have some sense of loyalty & consideration for their own loved ones at least if not for our counjtry & all of our freedoma & liberties which she obviously shows so much distain for.

on Feb. 7 2016 at 7:27 pm
exactly, even that is false in this obvious anti Rights piece of political propaganda

on Feb. 7 2016 at 6:57 pm
No offense, but your writing which can not in truth be called agenuine "article", due to it containing nothing but falsehoods, inaccuracies, misquotes, falacies,fiction & utter nonsense, would take too many pages of rebuttal in order to answer factually & to substantiate so many many incorrect claims & innuendoes. Therefore one factual statement by one of our founding fathers should at least factually state exactly why they had the experience, wisdom common sense, patriotism,sincereity, & expertise to be cognizant, able & willing to endow us fortify us with & to constitutionally guarantee us with the strongest most viable legitimate sensible efficient means & mechanism with which to enable our free country to continue existing as such- which of course was/is our most cherished "beacon of liberty" the 2nd Amendment. Or as our founders put it better than anyone amoung their many reasons & quotes therin being one which you should ponder quite seriously: "the people are the Master of their government.... the government is the Servant of the people... the people should ALWAYS be well armed, less the Master becomes the Servant..." _our Founding Fathers

Trump2016 said...
on Jan. 28 2016 at 2:35 pm
How about you learn how guns actually work instead of saying all handguns are semi automatic.


Parkland Book