OPINION
BY ASHLYNN AUGUSTUS, Sophomore
BLYTHEWOOD- Gun control has been an important discussion in the United States, especially after the increased number of mass shootings that have occurred in recent years. According to The Guardian , there have been over 1,000 mass shootings in the U.S ever since the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, where 26 people at an elementary school were fatally wounded.
One side argues there should not be gun control laws, while the other disagrees.
However, people should be wondering about which solution will work in order to prevent tragedies like the mass shooting San Bernardino, CAL. from happening again.
The answer would be to enforce stricter laws and restrictions and more thorough background checks.
The answer would be to enforce stricter laws and restrictions and more thorough background checks.
According to MSNBC, more than 80 percent of guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally.
Twenty percent of guns used in these events were illegal, meaning these shootings could have been prevented with stricter gun control laws.
Imagine how a friend or family member of a mass shooting victim feels, knowing their loved one's death could have possibly been prevented.
Anti-gun control followers would argue that this would only cause more problems and cause this to happen more often, which is not true.
If there were stricter laws and restrictions, then people would not try to commit these horrendous act, since there would be more done to prevent this.
If there were more thorough background checks, then people would could potentially use their new gun for harm, would be stopped before they could even get it.
Anti-gun control would argue, “The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, thus gun control measures are unconstitutional,” which is definitely not true.
According to the United States Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment states: “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.”
During the Revolutionary War, this amendment was created so people could rise up and create a militia, if it was absolutely necessary. There was no federal army, during this time period, so it was up to the state to get together and create a militia.
While it may be unconstitutional for the government to just flat out ban guns, it is proper for the government to enable stricter laws and restrictions, which would keep these weapons out of the hands of people who would not use them responsibly.
One of the more common arguments by anti-gun control is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.
There are two main flaws to this argument.
The first being, gun control could possibly stop this bad guy from even getting a gun in the first place, so there would be no need for a good guy with a gun.
The second is the good guy with a gun is typically a police officer. Also, a normal citizen with a gun could only cause more problems if they used it in a mass shooting.
Imagine this scenario.
There is an armed gunman at a school, just shooting away at any student or teacher who happens to get in his way. In response, a teacher, who has an assault rifle, goes out there to try and stop the shooter.
These two people have a shoot out, which could cause hundreds of bullets to rain down everywhere and cause more harm than the intended shooter would have done.
In the end, it would be better if the government enforced gun control. They would not take away everyone’s rights to purchase a gun, just those of individuals, who would use their weapon for harm.
