Argumentative Essay: The Need For Gun Control

The scene of news reporters at the site of another shooting that happened only hours before is all too familiar. Caution tape blocks the public from entering the crime scene and lights of cop cars and ambulances flash against the faces of the reporters, revealing their expressions of heartache and defeat. They try to stay strong as they announce the number of lives taken; the innocent lives of men and women, even children, who were attending a concert, browsing the shopping market, or studying in their classrooms. In the days that follow, thoughts and prayers from all around the country are offered to the families of the victims. The suffering is echoed throughout the nation. But it doesn’t stop. Time after time, mass shootings cause loss and

suffering that can never be repaired. Time after time, nothing is done to stop it. Members of Congress promise to bring about the change that may settle the issue, but as time passes, they change their priorities. As the investigation continues, the weapon that caused all the adversity is revealed; an AR-15 assault rifle. The weapon that is commonly used in mass shootings has once again created unnecessary hardship among Americans. Objects that are made to inflict heavy damage should not be available to the public where the wrong person can get ahold of them. The logical solution in preventing countless lives from being lost in horrific gun massacres should be banning assault weapons.
Previous bans on assault weapons have been successful in reducing violence involving these weapons. In 1994, the United States Congress banned the production of assault weapons. The effectiveness of this ban has been controversial since its conclusion in 2004. Banning the manufacturing of 18 assault style weapons as well as military style features, the 1994 law allowed owners to keep their guns that had been purchased before the ban was enacted (Ingraham). Those that argue this law was not successful point out the loopholes it failed to address. There were areas in which the ban was weak, however, it was successful in reducing its primary goal of reducing mass shootings in the United States. Research by Louis Klarevas of the University of Massachusetts determined just how significant the ban was. According to Klarevas, the number of mass shootings that occurred during the ban decreased 37 percent and the deaths that occurred in mass shootings declined 43 percent in comparison with the ten years before the ban. Unfortunately, when the ban ended, these numbers increased substantially; the amount of shootings increased by 183 percent and deaths caused by the shootings increased 239 percent (Ingraham). The accomplishments of the 1994 ban in diminishing mass shootings are noteworthy and should be considered in enforcing another ban. The progress achieved by other countries who have also placed bans on assault weapons should likewise be examined as a solution to stop unnecessary gun violence.
The United States should follow the action that Australia took in passing gun control and banning assault weapons. After a massacre carried out by a man yielding an assault rifle left 35 civilians dead, Australia’s prime minister passed legislation that banned the imports and manufacturing of assault weapons (Leaf). This logical solution was both sufficient in preventing mass shootings as well as rational in addressing the worries of those who were against the ban. According to Clifton Leaf, editor in chief of Fortune magazine, following the ban, “Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. . . . As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years.” Australia’s success in banning assault weapons is evident; the United States should adhere to their example in order to put a stop to all the suffering caused by mass shootings.
It is not necessary for assault weapons to be available to the public.

Some may argue that by making these weapons unavailable, the government would be taking away the Second Amendment that protects their right to own a gun. It is true that their Second Amendment right would be regulated, however, banning these weapons would protect their most important right; the inalienable right to life and happiness. This type of gun, responsible for mass killings of innocent civilians, should not be accessible in an organized society such as the United States. There is no need for a weapon of its caliber anywhere in civilization. Seth Moulton, an Iraq War veteran and current Congressman states “There’s simply no reason for a civilian to own a military-style assault weapon. It’s no different than why we outlaw civilian ownership of rockets and landmines.” As a former veteran who “trained for years to use [the] weapon properly,” and “had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull [the] trigger,” Moulton understands how threatening the availability of these weapons is. Other than causing significant harm to members of society, assault weapons serve no purpose. Banning these weapons would prevent the threat they pose to

civilization.
Assault weapons are manufactured to kill. Some people may claim that these weapons can be useful in self defense and argue that banning them would go against their right provided by the Second Amendment. They are forgetting the capability of destruction caused by the weapons that are designed to inflict heavy damage. The only difference between an assault weapon manufactured for the military and an assault weapon marketed to civilians is the speed at which they fire. While those used in the military are fully automatic, assault weapons available to the public are semi-automatic. Regarding social well-being, “this is a distinction without a difference in terms of public safety. The unique design measures of semiautomatic assault weapons allow the shooter to efficiently kill as many people possible in the shortest amount of time available” (“Assault Weapons”). The belief that assault weapons are necessary for self defense is unacceptable. Objects that are specifically designed to take lives do not serve any purpose in society.
Banning assault weapons could put an end to the suffering caused by mass shootings. There is a great deal of disagreement in America over who or what is to blame for mass shootings. Some people believe it is the person, not the weapon, that is responsible for these horrific acts. Accusing the America’s mental health system of weakness, they call for stronger background checks to prevent those who may be dangerous from purchasing guns. They are correct to identify the issue of mental health related to gun violence, however, background checks don’t always restrain mentally unstable individuals from buying these weapons. Unfortunately, “A vast majority of guns used in 19 recent mass shootings were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least nine gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons” (Buchanan et al.). Although background checks are important and mostly successful, there are loopholes that allow dangerous people to buy assault weapons. In addition to weaknesses in background checks, there are other ways people can get ahold of these dangerous weapons. Adam Lanza used his mother’s semi-automatic weapons, which were purchased legally, to kill six adults and twenty children at Sandy Hook Elementary School (Buchanan et al.). Banning assault weapons would prevent this problem. If these weapons were unavailable to the public, Lanza and the others would not have been able to cause the pain and destruction felt too frequently among Americans.
Americans should not have to feel that their lives are in jeopardy because of these deadly weapons. Banning assault weapons would both prevent this fear, as well as put an end to the adversity they cause. Heather Sher, a radiologist, observed the injuries caused by an AR-15 rifle as a result of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. She says, “It’s clear to me that AR-15 and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet.” As someone who has witnessed the damage caused by these weapons, Sher demands action in putting an end to gun violence. She adds, “I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, a movie theater, or a concert and to know that they are safe.” As citizens of the United States, the fear for life should not exist. These weapons are threatening the inalienable right to life and the pursuit of happiness granted by our founding fathers. As long as this weapon is accessible, these rights will continue to be endangered.
Making assault weapons unattainable to the American public is the best approach to end mass shootings. Enforcing nationwide background checks and reforming the mental health system are both convincing solutions that have had success, however, these methods will always have loopholes. There will always be a way for someone dangerous to undermine the process and cause preventable damage. By banning the weapons completely, there would be no possible way for someone to obtain them. Congress needs to take initiative and put the safety of the people first. The only way to completely put an end to mass shootings is to ban the weapons responsible.
As American citizens who feel the effects of mass shootings much too often, we should demand the action that will put an end to our suffering. Banning assault weapons has become the necessary solution to end mass shootings in America. WIthout these weapons, parents will not have to worry about their children’s safety at school. News reporters will not have to continuously read off the names of those lost. American lives will not be threatened by weapons of war. By ending the terror that has gone on too long already, Americans will feel protected again.