Caitlin Hammaren was just a normal sophomore at Virginia Tech and on April 16, 2007 what seemed as just a normal day of class her life had been taken away from her. That Monday morning she probably woke up, picked out what she was going to wear, did her hair, got her books ready and headed right to class not having even a clue of what was going to happen to her that tragic day. On this day 32 people were killed by a man who was clearly mentally ill, being that he was not in his right mind the killer should have not been able to put his hands on these firearms

The Virginia Tech shooting seems like something that keeps repeating itself every other month now. This past week we experienced yet another school shooting, making it the 46^th shooting just this year.

As a result of this incident, opponents of gun control believe that guns are not the actual problem because they insist that criminals do not follow laws, therefore if guns are banned people would not be able to protect themselves. On the other hand, supporters of gun control more validly believe that America should have better control over the use of these firearms.

Countries like England and Japan show that strict laws on guns actually help lower the number of homicides. “In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000,” said Walter Hickey in his article for Business Insider. This proves that taking control of these arms does actually help.

Some Americans may question if the NRA actually is worried about protecting our rights as Americans to bare arms or are they simply preoccupied that if there is a better control over guns and less people are interested in buying these firearms, then the gun industries will start to make less money, meaning that if the NRA is allied with these manufacturers they will also end up losing money. So is this a real fight for our rights or just for the NRA’s own benefits?

Another argument that comes up is that criminals simply do not follow the law and therefore more control on weapons will do nothing. Supporters of gun control contend that this argument is ridiculous since yes, criminals do not follow the laws but that does not mean that their behavior should not be controlled. For example, rape is illegal and there are still cases of criminals committing this crime, but that does not mean the American Government is going to stop making laws against rape.

Since opponents of gun control believe that making laws for guns is a waste of time because criminals do not respect the law thus they will still commit these crimes, then if that is the case why not make everything else legal? Many people assume that since criminals do not follow the law, everyone should have a gun for self-defense.

Finally in recent discussions of gun control, a controversial issue has been whether controlling our firearms is or is not the right thing to do. My own view is that having control over these firearms is the right thing to do. Though I concede that taking away guns will not put an end to the situation, I still maintain that if there are better regulations over the guns there will be less shootings in America.

Taking into consideration all that has been said, I wonder how long is it going to take for people to see the harm that is being done because of these firearms and the people that get their hands on them? Lori Hass mother of a victim of the Virginia tech shooting claims that over 60,000 Americans have been killed with guns since the shooting at Virginia Tech, which makes me wonder what if something had been done to control our guns, how many of these people would still be alive today?