It is no secret that the United States is suffering from a gun problem. If you don’t see it as a problem, you should.

We’ve reached a really tough spot in our country, where guns pose a serious threat to human life at the same time that millions of firearms are already circulated.

Whether it’s domestic gun violence or other shootings, American citizens are suffering. Dying. With a gun homicide rate 25.2 times higher here than in other high-income countries, women in the U.S. are 16 times more likely to be killed by a gun than women in other developed nations. There have been 150 mass shootings since 1966. You can see an archive of mass shootings here http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting. There are over ten pages of gun violence recorded within the last 72 hours on the Gun Violence Archive.

So what do we do about it?

Well, the most reasonable thing right now is something. We have to do something that’s actually going to save people’s lives. I believe that something should begin with stricter regulations and a significantly more intensive process to become the owner of a gun.

If you aren’t going to misuse your gun, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. If your motives are clean, you should still be able to obtain it. It seems there’s really nothing to be afraid of with regulation and restriction if you have nothing to hide. It will take a little longer, it’ll be a bit more of a “hassle.”

But it’s a gun. It is a weapon specifically designed to kill. Guns do nothing but injure and take life.

A gun, not a bag of groceries. Not a pair of glasses. Not a pack of tic tacs. It shouldn’t be “easy” to purchase. It shouldn’t be granted to anyone with the snap of a finger and a one-hour wait time. Yes, the Second Amendment is important, but so is social and historical context, and so are people’s lives.

The past and current state of gun violence in our country makes it very clear that Americans cannot handle unreserved, unrestrained access to guns. The Gun Control Act and other preventative measures have not been enough.

I understand that a lot of people are really afraid of regulation. But once again, it’s a gun— not something that citizens should be able to effortlessly obtain. If the system ain’t broke, don’t fix it it— but friends, we are broken.

That’s why there need to be stricter regulations and measures taken to at least attempt to keep guns out of the wrong hands and unnecessarily deadly weapons away from civilians. And I don’t know exactly how to solve the problem of what types of weapons are out there, but I definitely think it’s important to consider that civilians don’t really need access to guns that can fire 50-plus rounds in a minute. Does it make sense to allow that kind of weaponry in a country that is so abhorrently plagued by mass shootings right now?

I understand the idea that it is the human being that shoots the gun, not the gun that shoots itself, but it really seems that mass shootings are becoming more and more frequent, and more and more deadly. The gun may only be the tool of the person desiring to kill, but it makes the killing possible.

Guns such as AK-47s were first designed in 1947 for use in the Soviet military. These kinds of weapons are made for killing many people in little time, for the military. Can anyone tell me why it’s a good idea for U.S. citizens to own guns designed to end life in that capacity?

The next piece of this blood-curdling puzzle: strengthening the system so that guns are less accessible to those who would plan to do harm. It’s not rocket science.

Dylann Roof purchased a gun because of mistakes in the bureaucracy and an expired three-day waiting period on a background check, then killed 9 people in a Charleston church. Devin Patrick Kelley, despite being convicted of assaulting his wife and breaking his stepson’s skull in 2012, passed a federal background check that allowed him to buy guns, later killing 26 people in Sutherland Springs. The FBI failed to act on a tip that Nikolas Cruz posed a serious threat, and he killed 17 high schoolers in Parkland, Florida, this past February.

It seems obvious, then, that things like background checks need to be made stronger. In the face of gun violence generally, states with more background check requirements have been proven to have at least a slightly lower homicide rate. Background checks do good.

Mental health should also always be taken very seriously. The argument that mental health is the only problem, however, is countered by statistics that give that only around 22% of mass shooters could’ve been considered mentally ill. People in the U.S., experts say, aren’t more mentally ill than in other countries— they’re more likely to use guns if they want to harm people.

I am also aware, however, that much gun violence and even shootings are carried out by people who can legally buy guns because nothing on their background check could possibly implicate them. That means it needs to be about prevention on a greater scale.

I think the opposing argument I hear the most is that there’s no way to actually enforce any sort of strict gun regulation— or that decreasing the number of guns out there decreases our safety. Well, as a matter of fact, there is a legitimately, realistically implemented gun reform plan that the U.S. should use as a case study, and it’s called Australia.

After the awful Port Arthur massacre in 1996, where a gunman shot and killed 35 people and wounded 18, Australia acted boldly. Politicians legislated a ban on certain types of weapons, required registration of firearms, provided licenses based only only with genuine reason, necessitated separate permits for each gun purchase, ended private and mail-order gun sales, and instituted a buyback program where gun owners would be paid to turn in prohibited types of guns.

In the face of out of control gun violence, Australian policy makers took steps necessary to change the condition of their country. And it worked. There has only been one shooting spree in Australia since the nation’s gun reform in 1996. One, compared to a United States with mass shooting headlines coming up more quickly than they can be processed.

Even if the same sort of gun reform couldn’t be exactly replicated in the U.S., I think it’s pretty obvious that gun reform is necessary. And I admire Australia greatly for considering human lives over their attachment to firearms. And they can still purchase firearms, it’s just a safer, more reasonable, regulated system. At the very least, they did something that changed an issue and surely saved many lives.

Japan, in addition, requires classes, a written test, a shooting-range test, mental health and drug tests, criminal background checks, even examination of links to extremist groups, relatives, and your workplace. Police in Japan have the power to deny gun licenses and to search and seize weapons.

I’m not saying every single one of those criteria will fit the U.S. perfectly or even well, but at least Japan seems to understand that guns are a serious thing.

Going through classes, a test, mental health and drug screening, background checks don’t seem very unreasonable when trying to acquire a highly effective killing machine.

In a final point regarding safe storage of firearms, the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Education gave a report that 68% of school shooters obtained their guns at home or in the home of a relative, which might be prevented in the future with safe storage laws. It seems reasonable that guns should be kept locked away safely in homes, doesn’t it? States with strict safe storage laws have been shown to have significant less youth suicides by firearm— as much as a 33% difference— than states who don’t. There’s proof that safe storage will save lives.

In essence, there are many measures we can legislatively take to change the landscape of this nation’s gun violence issue, and measures are certainly necessary.

You can still hunt if there are stricter regulations and less access to military assault and law enforcement weapons. You can still “protect your family” with less than a semiautomatic gun. Research even shows that self-defense with a gun is actually no more likely to decrease the chance of injury during a crime than other defensive actions.

That means that family members, friends, and acquaintances, are more likely to be killed by people they already know, or that are in their own home. 1,800 people are killed each year by their intimate partners— and forcing those with permanent restraining orders because of intimate-partner violence to turn in their guns actually dropped the gun-related intimate-partner homicide rate by 14%.

Guns protect families at the same time that they kill them.

There are going to be holes in any sort of gun reform. Just as any other legislation, it’s not going to be perfect. There is no telling what could still happen. But the more important point is that something has to be done, because it’s obvious that what we have right now isn’t working.

How many people are going to be killed before this country actually changes things drastically?

I’m not trying to say that I have the right answers. I don’t. And I understand that guns are a very complex issue, especially in the United States. I understand that moving in a good direction won’t be simple. But we don’t need simple. We don’t need easy.

We need change.