Gun Control Debates in The United States

In 2018, more than 100 children have died in school shootings, with many more injured. Guns have always been present in our society, even when our founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Gun control has always been an issue, and now more than ever it is being debated between 2 big groups. On one side we have the NRA, and other pro-gun owners. On the other, there are the Liberal-leaning politicians and their constituents.

On February 20th, 2018 yet another school shooting occurred in Parkland, Florida, and now schools across the nation are demanding a drastic change to gun restrictions. But is this just? The Florida shooting could have easily been prevented, whether it be the tip-offs the FBI received about the shooter’s erratic mental state, or the fact that four police officers waited outside the school listening to the unmistakable sound of gunshots. Is it just to take away the Constitutional rights of the people because a few law-enforcement agents made unforgivable mistakes that could have altered the fates of 17 school children?

Many people are torn between the possible answers to this question, including me. I agree that something must be done, but that it shouldn’t be as extreme as what some are proposing. There are arguments and problems on both sides. The gun-control activists call for a complete ban to automatic weapons altogether. Many would argue that the 2nd amendment protects us from the government taking away our rights to own a gun. However, what these people forget to mention is the first part of the amendment. It says “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ” The first part clearly says “A well-regulated militia. ” We are far beyond that in our present day society. There are people with gun-collections composed of hundreds of guns ranging from tiny pistols to high powered automatic rifles. Is this really necessary? Do people really need to own hundreds of guns, even double digit amounts?

Many people would argue no, it is not necessary. Another argument is that a gun owner can hopefully prevent a shooting. However, people on the other side say no, a gun owner would either be too inexperienced or too afraid to step in and prevent a mass shooting. They argue that the realistic chance of gun-owners being able to protect themselves, let alone the people around them, in an emergency is very slim. Some less radical politicians are demanding less outrageous solutions. These people acknowledge the right to have some guns, but are demanding restrictions on certain weapons, from a ban of high powered guns like Ar-15s, to bump stocks which increase the firing rate of guns. People on the other side also have well thought-through arguments. First, they bring up the constitution. Sure is does say a “regulated militia, ” but it also says, “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ” This means if Donald Trump randomly woke up one morning and said, “I’m going to ban all guns, ” it would be voted unconstitutional because it goes against the second amendment. However, if he woke up one morning said “I’m going to ban some guns, ” it would vote constitutional as it doesn't go against the second amendment. The constitution says “a well-regulated militia, ” and by banning high-powered gun Donald Trump would be regulating, as well as preserving the citizens’ rights to bear arms. One might come the question of why are both sides so unwilling to agree on a middle ground solution that will be fair for both, such as a ban to high powered guns. This would eliminate someone's ability to perpetrate a mass shooting, and it would also be allowing pro-gun owners to defend themselves and use guns for recreational use.

I think that it is because some people believe that if they give in, more restrictions will follow after that, while on the other side anything less than a total ban would not go far enough. I do believe that no matter what happens, both sides will be demanding more. If we ban some types of guns, people will still want to ban all guns. And if we ban too few guns, people will feel not enough has been done and nothing was accomplished.