7 Facts From The Las Vegas Shooting That Prove We Need More Gun Regulation

7 Facts From The Las Vegas Shooting That Prove We Need More Gun Regulation

Should these weapons be allowed with civilians? How safe are they, and how easy is it to get them?
165
views

The Las Vegas shooting was a terrible tragedy that killed more than 50 people and injured over 500. It brought out the best in people, and around the nation, many are mourning. But this devastating event raises many questions about gun control and regulations in America — should these weapons be allowed with civilians? How safe or dangerous are they? How easily can you get legally or illegally get them? Let's start off with these simple fact.


1. The Las Vegas shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

With at least 59 people killed and more than 500 people injured, the Harvest Music Festival shooting in Las Vegas is the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. This means that this shooting had the highest death toll out of all shootings dating from 1949. The Pulse nightclub shooting in Florida had 49 deaths and more than 50 injured, and the shooting at Virginia Tech killed 32 people and wounded an "undetermined number of others."

2. More than 10,000 people in 2017 around the world have died from gun-related causes.

Not to mention 23,347 injuries, 271 mass shootings or 543 children killed or wounded. Keep in mind that this is only in the year 2017. As a young adult and a member of society, I don't really feel safe, especially as more guns are being allowed on campuses. Get more statistics here.

3. One out of three homes with kids also own guns.

In other words, about 1.7 million children live at a home with at least one unlocked and loaded gun. Additionally, children and adults may feel more obliged to commit suicide with the presence of a gun at home. Of course, you can argue that guns won't be dangerous if placed in responsible hands, but what about the hands of children? Surely you can't blame children.

4. There are about 350 million guns in the United States in circulation.


There are about 113 guns for every 100 Americans. Whether these guns are obtained legally or illegally, who knows what damage they can cause? Even if I do agree with citizens arming and defending themselves, maybe 1.13 guns for every American is too intense.

5. Dying from a gun assault is more likely than choking or drowning to death.

Surprisingly, you are more likely to die from an assault by a gun than a foreign-born terrorist. In fact, dying from a gun assault is not as rare as you might think.

6. America has almost five times as much deaths from guns as other similarly developed and high-GDP countries.

America is a very developed country, yet for all that we brag about, there's still the question of gun homicide. In this chart, America is a definite outlier, as the United States' rate of deaths from gun violence is about five times more than the country with the second highest death toll of gun homicides.

7. In the state with the highest deaths by gun, 23.4 people are killed for every 100,000 people.

States with stricter gun control laws like California have a significantly lower number of deaths than states with looser gun control laws like Alabama. Every day, innocent people are in unknown danger of being killed by firearms. Perhaps this wouldn't happen so often if governments tightened gun regulations.

If you would like to learn more about firearms and numbers on them, visit the following pages: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Institute of Justice.

Cover Image Credit: Facebook / NPR

Popular Right Now

5 Perks Of Having A Long-Distance Best Friend

The best kind of long-distance relationship.
277928
views

Sometimes, people get annoyed when girls refer to multiple people as their "best friend," but they don't understand. We have different types of best friends. There's the going out together best friend, the see each other everyday best friend and the constant, low maintenance best friend.

While I'm lucky enough to have two out of the three at the same school as me, my "low maintenance" best friend goes to college six hours from Baton Rouge.

This type of friend is special because no matter how long you go without talking or seeing each other, you're always insanely close. Even though I miss her daily, having a long-distance best friend has its perks. Here are just a few of them...

1. Getting to see each other is a special event.

Sometimes when you see someone all the time, you take that person and their friendship for granted. When you don't get to see one of your favorite people very often, the times when you're together are truly appreciated.

2. You always have someone to give unbiased advice.

This person knows you best, but they probably don't know the people you're telling them about, so they can give you better advice than anyone else.

3. You always have someone to text and FaceTime.

While there may be hundreds of miles between you, they're also just a phone call away. You know they'll always be there for you even when they can't physically be there.

4. You can plan fun trips to visit each other.

When you can visit each other, you get to meet the people you've heard so much about and experience all the places they love. You get to have your own college experience and, sometimes, theirs, too.

5. You know they will always be a part of your life.

If you can survive going to school in different states, you've both proven that your friendship will last forever. You both care enough to make time for the other in the midst of exams, social events, and homework.

The long-distance best friend is a forever friend. While I wish I could see mine more, I wouldn't trade her for anything.

Cover Image Credit: Just For Laughs-Chicago

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

A Florida House Committee Is Undermining Your Vote On Amendment 4

Before felons can regain their right to vote, they must pay court fines, fees, and take care of any other "financial obligations." Essentially, this is a poll tax.

376
views

Amendment 4, also known as the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, was added to the Constitution of Florida after being passed this last midterm election on November 6, 2018.

Amendment 4 restored the voting rights of Floridians with prior felony convictions after all terms of their sentence have been met, including parole and probation. This amendment only applies to felons who have not been convicted of murder or sexual offenses.

On January 8, 2019, an estimated 1.4 million ex-felons regained their right to vote. This is monumental. Prior to this amendment, Florida was one of four states that used felony disenfranchisement. Amendment 4 gives voice, and rightfully so, to felons who have served their time. Amendment 4 is also putting to rest, finally, years and years of disenfranchisement and suppression.

Now, only two months after its passage, the House Criminal Justice Committee is trying to water down this piece of legislation. This is a direct violation of the will of the 64% of Floridians who voted for the legislation as is. This amendment was not to be "clarified," as Governor DeSantis put it, but rather to be self-implementing.

However, the House Criminal Justice Committee proposed a bill that would tack on some extra qualifiers in order for felons to be enfranchised. The bill will require court fines, fees, and other "financial obligations" (in addition to fees administered in a judge's sentence) to be paid in full before a felon's voting rights are restored. This seems awfully similar to a poll tax to me. Obviously, this is going to affect people without a lot of resources rather than white-collar criminals who can afford a $500,000 bond.

This new qualifier will prevent felons from voting based on the money that can be coughed up as if they don't have to worry about their finances long after they leave prison.

Some may argue that these felons shouldn't have committed a crime in the first place. However, I would argue that holding a felon's vote hostage on the basis of money is unconstitutional.

Related Content

Facebook Comments