Ever since elementary school in my years in Louisiana, I have heard and sometimes even agreed with the saying, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." But I cannot force myself to take sides in this matter because my take on this isn't extreme.
In the South and many rural areas across the nation, guns have been the essence of living, due to recreational purposes such as hunting for various game animals and even as a sport. Most families with children are disciplined enough to use their non-military guns only for such purposes and also for safety in case of robbery or a life threat. So, it wouldn't be fair to blame and punish responsible gun owners for mass shootings across the nation.
At times, gun violence erupts because an individual is uncontrollably angry or frustrated. Often times, the killer loses his mind out of control because his mental problem isn't able to let him use his conscience. A lack of restraint is definitely what makes a gun fire at another person. It's said to be not the gun's fault, but rather the shooter's.
However, I also cannot deny the fact that access to guns, especially to automatic military-style weapons, has been detrimental to our society. Why would a non-military or an uncertified personnel possess such dangerous weapons if they are designed to be used in war?
Access to semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns comes from a variety of sources and loopholes. Here are only some:
First, the differences in each state's laws predict who gets the gun. Federal law cannot force and/or coerce states to give information to the federal government about ineligible citizens in order for those individuals to be federally screened.
Second, private sales don't always take place after background checks, and the transaction could lead to a mentally unstable or uncontrollably furious individual gaining access.
Third, states don't always record enough or appropriate data about ineligible citizens within their borders.
Fourth, the Brady Exemption allows previously eligible gun owners to skip screening and up-to-date background checks before purchasing a gun.
What bothers me the most is that uninformed and/ or ignorant individuals on both sides are too quick with their bias.
In the Orlando night club shooting, people have pointed out that the area was a "gun-free zone, and because of that, those night-clubbers could't bring a gun to defend themselves." Yes, maybe more lives could've been saved with a defense weapon. But, we still go back to the question of how did a mentally unstable person, happening to be from a Muslim background, even possess such a gun?
No, gun-defenders, the government isn't taking your gun rights away. It is taking away weapons of mass destruction--automatic assault weapons--by the establishment of stricter background checks and sealed loopholes. Also, people will always find a way to get anything that has been banned, but it will be much more difficult to obtain. You can still use a personal weapon in times of danger at your very homes.
Obama's anti-gun agenda in the US has sold over 100 million guns during his own presidency, a fact many find ironic. Gun business has been booming since 2008 as we know it. Let's check up on facts before entirely blaming Obama for gun confiscation. Let's not forget that this can allow people to obtain military weapons through various methods. It's time to ditch the myths.
To those who are victims of gun violence, I empathize with you. To those who wish to end gun trouble once and for all, banning all guns is not the answer.
What we must all realize and accept is that we do not live in a perfect, utopian society where everyone acts according to the law. We can only protect the second amendment if it protects us.
We can have our cake and eat it too.
