As the gun control debate continues to twist and turn throughout political parties and the entire nation, the communities of people wrongfully affected by the hot debate remains the same, as well as the facts: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States of America had more than 33,000 firearms deaths: 70 percent of all homicides, more than half of all suicides, and hundreds of accidental and unsolved deaths involving gun violence.
The astounding statistics put America in a tough place; however the solution is clear. Fewer firearms will dramatically decrease violent consequences. In addition, a better policy on who may obtain such fewer guns would also improve the cruel climate. As of now, citizens with criminal records, mental illness, drug addicts, etc. can not legally own a gun. However, the law requires gun dealers to conduct background checks on prospective holders. The problem: the background checks are not intense. The checks often do not detect mental illness because individuals with serious mental illness never receive the needed “adjudication” that denies them the right to possess. Many mass shooting aftermaths have been executed by criminals with severe mental disturbance. Select and more thorough background checks would help significantly reduce the national threat known as gun violence.
If action is not taken to decrease the guns dispersed and riddled throughout our nation, horrendous acts could continue. So, no, Wayne LaPierre (the N.R.A executive vice president) who infamously stated that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”. The statement was awkwardly, uncomfortably and wrongfully delivered after the tragic Newtown, Connecticut elementary school shooting.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is legislation that recognizes that that firearm could threaten and take the life of another.
In an intimate interview on Time, James Jacobs, director of Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law, a professor of constitutional law, and the author of Can Gun Control Work?, explains some of his deep sentiments regarding gun control. He claims that “things are really better than they’ve been for decades” in our society in terms of gun crime. He proceeds to discuss the decrease in violent crime and gun crime the United States has witnessed since the early 1990’s despite the increasing number of firearms. At first glance his facts seem valid and difficult to argue but when you take a further glance into the facts he has presented, there are some serious holes in his argument. It is important to address gun violence for the United States as a whole, however, each state facilitates varying gun laws and policies so this feat is impossible when talking statistics. Jacobs’ claim that things are better than they’ve ever been is a skewed perception of reality when examining gun crime. The reason his statistics relating to the decrease in violent crime and gun crime since the 90’s are invalid is because the policies have also tightened up. Gun laws are nowhere near where they were in the 90’s so making such a comparison is practically useless. A more effective and efficient approach to evaluating gun policies is to examine state specific gun laws and compare data from before and after policies changes; similar to the statistics examined in the New York Time’s article on Missouri gun policy.
Jacobs furthers his argument by insisting that our constitution, a document that is over 200 years old, limits our capability of changing gun policies. Such limitations seem idiotic in light of the consequences gun crime and violence hold. Should we all turn a blind eye to hundreds and thousands of deaths from guns because of this outdated constitutional right?
Jacobs truly outdoes himself in another topic regarding mental illness and gun policies. In general, politicians on both side of the gun debate have agreed that more should be done to keep guns away from the mentally ill. Jacobs attempts to seem politically correct in saying that it is extremely difficult to label who is mentally ill and what constitutes mental illness and proceeds to say that creating such a label will hinder anyone with such illness in their decision to seek help. Jacobs is attempting to appeal to the audience’s pathos and he does make a valid point that it is difficult to define what constitutes mental illness, however, the topic of mental illness should not be taken lightly especially in the light of gun crime and violence. Jacobs dances around the topic and sticks to his sentiments that gun policies should not be increased even in an attempt to forbid the mentally ill from obtaining them. As I had mentioned, it is generally agreed upon that state policies should prevent the mentally ill from acquiring firearms but Jacobs reasoning against it is essentially that it would be too much work to accomplish this. Does this constitute not doing anything?
Not only do Jacobs claims lack validity, he seems to purposely tip toe around the questions that he does not have a strong answer to. All in all his arguments against increased gun policies are extremely weak and express a lazy attitude towards possible constructive change.
Gun control has been a controversial topic across the nation for a long time now. Some people say restricting guns is an awful idea. They believe it is the right of all American citizens to bear arms and it serves as protection for millions of people. On the other hand, many Americans see guns as extremely dangerous, especially with all of the mass shootings going on in The United States in recent years. Since December 2012, when the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place, 892 mass shootings have happened since, with at least 967 people dead from these shootings. Other notable mass shootings involving guns include Virginia Tech’s shooting in 2007, where 33 people were killed including the gunman, and the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting in 2012, which claimed twelve lives. Gun supporters have their reasons, but gun control and regulations needs to be increased, as guns are too deadly and dangerous to continue being put in the hands of mentally insane people.
With at least 300 million firearms estimated to be present in America currently, a shocking statistic from the website, The Trace, approximately 40 percent of people obtain firearms without a background check. This is very scary for America, as there are so many firearms across the country that could be used by citizens who should never be able to buy a gun. Unfortunately, this is a big factor in why mass shootings occur. If background checks and gun laws can be enhanced and improved, firearms can be put in safer hands, while those who are trying to use guns for extremely wrong reasons will have a much tougher time acquiring weapons. These intensifications of gun laws could save this country from the tragedies we seem to experience every 2 months. Safety is obviously key in this argument, but are guns really keeping us safe as they take thousands of lives at the same time?