Following the Umpqua Community College shooting, there has been a lot of controversy. Shootings, especially in schools, have been frequently in the news for at least the last 15 years. Along with these tragedies, the argument around gun control is brought along and argued at an extent between liberals and conservatives with liberals for gun control and conservatives against it.
Conservatives believe that there should be no gun control because the Second Amendment gives citizens the rights to bear arms. They also believe that guns are not the reason people are dying; people are the reason. Liberals believe that the Second Amendment is only for the country to keep a militia or the National Guard. Also, liberals believe gun control is necessary to prevent gun violence because it will prevent people from obtaining guns and using them for harm. Conservatives believe that guns are necessary to stop gun violence in order to protect citizens from the violent criminals in our country.
Both sides have their solutions to the gun violence that is happening in our country. Liberals want to control the means of ownership of guns by the wrong people. Once guns are taken away from the citizens who are not fit to own a gun, the problem is solved. Yet there could be holes in that argument, such as if the people pass the qualifications yet are uneasy and could still be prone to violence. On the other side, conservatives believe that trained personnel should prevent any shooters to arrive at a site, but there is a hole in this because it is an odd ideology to consider that the solution to gun violence to be guns. Many Republican presidential candidates believe that the topic is not about gun violence but mental health. I have to disagree with this because small percentages of people who are mentally ill commit crimes. There is an unfair stigma towards mentally ill, and it is unfair for politicians to do this to the mentally ill. But even if it was a mental health issue, shouldn’t the mentally ill be prevented from obtaining any sort of weaponry?
Everyone is allowed to have his or her own side, but I sit here and turn on the news and every so often (more often than we want) a shooting takes place, and this same argument is happening. The point is that nothing is being done to prevent these acts of violence that occur in our country. Australia embedded gun control laws so that there is a very restrictive criteria one needs to follow in order to obtain a gun. So why is it so hard to implement a law? Wouldn’t it make sense to make citizens pass mental health tests and provide specific reasons for why they need a firearm? If a gun is more of a want than a necessity for one to live, then a person should not get one. It is very, very easy to obtain a gun, and it is despicable in my opinion because how can something used for violence be so easy to get? If guns don’t kill people and people kill people, then shouldn’t we prevent people from killing people by restricting the ownership of firearms in this country? At least take some form of action because nothing is being done, and I am tired of hoping that another shooting doesn’t happen. Without proper action, these events are likely to continue. Just think about this: These are American citizens like many of you, and they are dying in vain because nothing is being done so a portion of the citizens can keep a gun in their household for no real purpose.
