Gun Laws Pros And Cons

Imagine being forced to crawl and hide with gunshots near your ears. Imagine seeing people shot to death in front of you. Believe it or not, scenes like these occur on a daily basis in America. In the first 320 days of this year there were 325 mass shootings in the nation, defined as where there were more than four victims at each shooting. (Mass Shooting Tracker). This egregious level of violence is unacceptable in a developed country and major reform in gun legislation to improve the tragic state of public safety in the United States today. Although critics of expanded gun legislation incorrectly argue that easier access to guns increases safety and that gun laws are unconstitutional, it is imperative that America adopts stronger gun control legislation because heightened regulations reduce crime rates and have successfully improved public safety in other developed countries. In a country like the United States, no one

should be dying from gun violence.
Stronger gun control laws that target criminals reduce crime rates because they keep dangerous weapons out of criminal hands. History can confirm this. When the Brady Handgun Violence Act was passed in 1993, domestic abusers, convicted felons, and other dangerous individuals were restricted from buying guns through a national background check program. At the end of 2012, background checks had stopped 2.4 million people from obtaining firearms since the passage of the law (Bureau). However, because this bill only requires federally-registered gun dealers to conduct background checks, guns sold at gun shows and through private transactions are not monitored by the government, allowing criminals to legally purchase firearms and threaten our safety (Cooper, et al.). You can only imagine how much risk could be alleviated if we had universal background checks monitoring all gun purchases. Some states have already taken the lead, with positive results. Connecticut, for example, implemented a universal background check system in 1995. Following passage of the law, there was a 40 percent reduction in gun-related homicides (Rudolph, et al.). On the contrary, when the state of Missouri eliminated mandatory universal background checks, the repeal of the law was linked to a 25 percent increase in firearm homicide rates. It is clear that more gun regulations protect people. Gun rights advocates often counter that that more citizens armed with weapons are the right antidote to crime (Ingraham), but that often is not true. In an actual shooting, few people have the bravery and calculation to attack an active shooter while trying to escape or hide. In a recent interview regarding the Oregon community college shooting, survivor Tracy Heu described her experience, saying, “He [my professor] was trying to crawl down to the ground with us. And [the gunman] shot the professor and then he just started shooting everybody on the ground.." Tracy survived by lying face-down in a pool of blood, not by trying to attack the shooter. Unless everyone is equipped with a gun, subduing an attacker is risky and nearly impossible. Statistics also corroborate the fact that people often will not defend themselves violently when faced with an armed threat. Less than one percent of people defend themselves with a violent weapon when faced with a violent crime (Bureau). Critics instead should face reality; people should not be suffering such traumatizing experiences considering how preventable these tragedies often are. More weapons will not reduce violence; rather, stronger laws are needed to keep us safe.
Other countries have learned from their mistakes, and implemented gun control regulations that have effectively reduced crime. Australia, for example, used to have lax gun regulations, but after a 1996 massacre that killed 35 people, Australia’s government quickly passed a set of laws called the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program (Kreig), banning many high-capacity weapons and forcing government buybacks for restricted weapons. The law led to a sharp decline in violence, and Australia’s annual gun death rate dropped from 674 per year in 1988 to 226 per year in 2012. Today, Australia’s gun homicide rate is 0.19 gun homicides per 100,000 people (Kreig), while the rate in the United States is still 3.55 gun homicides per 100,000 people. Uncoincidentally, the gun ownership rate in the United States is 88 guns per 100 people (Reid), the highest in the world, reflecting the impact of easy access to these dangerous weapons. The strong correlation between gun ownership and gun violence shows that fewer guns in America would lead to a reduction in crime rates. There are critics who mention that Mexico’s strict gun laws,, which severely restrict firearm possession, do not decrease crime rates (Johnson), but it is important to consider that Mexico is a developing country ravaged by drug cartels. It is the exception, not the rule. Critics instead should examine the Western countries that have enacted more gun laws and now have very low gun homicide rates. Just as they have made our European counterparts safer, more gun control will make us safer.
Critics of gun control also often reference the Second Amendment to justify that gun laws are unconstitutional, but in reality they are misinterpreting the Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion of the court case DC vs. Heller, which struck down bans on handguns, former Supreme Court Justice John Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment was “a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed a threat to the sovereignty of the several States” (DC vs. Heller). The Second Amendment was intended to provide a state militia made up of citizens, not to guarantee civilian access to guns. Opponents of gun control who claim that the Second Amendment guarantees an unlimited right to bear arms do not consider that the bill was written in a different era of America, when the idea of a centralized military was new and states still fended for themselves. In both the modern and historic context, unlimited gun rights are not at all

constitutional.
If gun laws are constitutional, then what do we need to do first to reduce crime? Well, it is essential that we adopt gun regulations that are supported by a majority of Americans. Basic measures such as universal background checks, which are supported by 92 percent of Americans, and the restriction of guns from those with mental health disorders, which is supported by 88 percent of Americans (New York Times), need to be enacted to ensure that only sane law-abiding citizens can purchase weapons. It is possible to increase gun control, reducing the number of gun deaths, while respecting the wishes of gun owners. We need to call upon our members of Congress to bring America back to the forefront of keeping people safe.
More gun control will keep America safe because legislation reduces crime rates, improves public safety, and is constitutional. We need to fight to make our nation safer, and that starts with us. We need stricter gun legislation to ensure that generations today and after will live in a safer America.