Why We Need Gun Control

Why We Need Gun Control

If we cannot have emotional control, then we need gun control

According to the second amendment of the constitution, U.S. citizens have the right to own guns. With this right, our country has the highest amount of gun ownership compared to every other country in the world. According to CNN, America is “coincidentally” the home of the most mass shootings in the world as well. I think that we need gun control because this coincidence might be more of a causation than a correlation. Giving anyone the ability to own a gun means that it can be used as a weapon in the wrong hands, and why do we need weapons anyway? Here is a list of reasons why we need gun control:

1. We do not need weapons (guns) to live in society

In this country and around the world, people define self-defense as being able to stop another person from harming us, which can indicate the need to harm the other person. If someone has decided to attack another person, sometimes the only way to stop them is to harm them. Therefore, police have guns. People have guns as self-defense, yet other people use guns to initiate violence and crime. Perhaps the problem is that the gun is used almost solely for violence, which is what we DON’T need to coexist within a society.

2. Anyone can buy a gun

According to CNN, anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. Although a background check cannot prohibit from everyone with murderous motives from obtaining guns, we also need to remember that a background check does not include understanding someone else’s motives with the guns. Some people say it is for their own self-protection, but motives change over time. We do not always know who will use a gun to harm others until it is too late. Some people gain access to guns by knowing someone else who has a gun and stealing it. Gun ownership is not always the problem; the precautions of accessibility of the guns within private ownership are the problem.

3. Guns are only good for destruction

Guns are good for causing destruction and harming other living entities. Yet in a moment of extreme panic, they may be the only tool that stops a murderer in his/her tracks. The individual right to own a gun is based on the idea of self-protection, but should we have this kind of “protection” in society if all it does is promote harm?

4. Guns do not kill people; people kill people

Guns are a tool that can be used to harm other people, but they are not always used to do so. An object is innocent, but people are not. Sometimes, guns are used by people who like to practice shooting targets. People do have a right to like this kind of hobby. Although we should not inherently blame the gun or the owner of the gun, guns that are not properly regulated end up in the wrong hands at the wrong time. Perhaps the question to be answered is why people kill other people and is it because of the accessibility of an easy weapon to use?

5. Mass shootings are the result of lack of gun control

We all deserve to feel safe in our society. Our society tends to overlook the potential danger around us because we prefer to think that no one has bad intentions. The bad intentions that cause murder does not always stem from mental health problems, but instead they stem from emotional health problems. The difference is that mental health problems do not create violence, but wrath and anger can promote violence. Since wrath and anger are not always developed by people with mental health problems, the focus should be on how emotional states can undulate and breed unnecessary violence. Emotional states are not given the proper attention, and mental health is blamed for mass shootings instead. Unregulated emotions and mental health problems are not synonymous. Anyone can suffer from unregulated emotions based on their circumstances. Perhaps if society understood how to regulate emotions and seek help doing so, wrath and anger would not cause so much violence. Until this can be done, perhaps the answer is gun control. If we cannot have emotional control, then we need gun control.

Cover Image Credit: KC Poe

Popular Right Now

This Is How Your Same-Sex Marriage Affects Me As A Catholic Woman

I hear you over there, Bible Bob.

It won't.

Wait, what?

I promise you did read that right. Not what you were expecting me to say, right? Who another person decides to marry will never in any way affect my own marriage whatsoever. Unless they try to marry the person that I want to, then we might have a few problems.

As a kid, I was raised, baptized, and confirmed into an old school Irish Catholic church in the middle of a small, midwestern town.

Not exactly a place that most people would consider to be very liberal or open-minded. Despite this I was taught to love and accept others as a child, to not cast judgment because the only person fit to judge was God. I learned this from my Grandpa, a man whose love of others was only rivaled by his love of sweets and spoiling his grandkids.

While I learned this at an early age, not everyone else in my hometown — or even within my own church — seemed to get the memo. When same-sex marriage was finally legalized country-wide, I cried tears of joy for some of my closest friends who happen to be members of the LGBTQ community.

I was happy while others I knew were disgusted and even enraged.

"That's not what it says in the bible! Marriage is between a man and a woman!"

"God made Adam and Eve for a reason! Man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman!"

"Homosexuality is a sin! It's bad enough that they're all going to hell, now we're letting them marry?"

Alright, Bible Bob, we get it, you don't agree with same-sex relationships. Honestly, that's not the issue. One of our civil liberties as United States citizens is the freedom of religion. If you believe your religion doesn't support homosexuality that's OK.

What isn't OK is thinking that your religious beliefs should dictate others lives.

What isn't OK is using your religion or your beliefs to take away rights from those who chose to live their life differently than you.

Some members of my church are still convinced that their marriage now means less because people are free to marry whoever they want to. Honestly, I wish I was kidding. Tell me again, Brenda how exactly do Steve and Jason's marriage affect yours and Tom's?

It doesn't. Really, it doesn't affect you at all.

Unless Tom suddenly starts having an affair with Steve their marriage has zero effect on you. You never know Brenda, you and Jason might become best friends by the end of the divorce. (And in that case, Brenda and Tom both need to go to church considering the bible also teaches against adultery and divorce.)

I'll say it one more time for the people in the back: same-sex marriage does not affect you even if you or your religion does not support it. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage then do not marry someone of the same sex. Really, it's a simple concept.

It amazes me that I still actually have to discuss this with some people in 2017. And it amazes me that people use God as a reason to hinder the lives of others.

As a proud young Catholic woman, I wholeheartedly support the LGBTQ community with my entire being.

My God taught me to not hold hate so close to my heart. He told me not to judge and to accept others with open arms. My God taught me to love and I hope yours teaches you the same.

Disclaimer - This article in no way is meant to be an insult to the Bible or religion or the LGBTQ community.

Cover Image Credit: Sushiesque / Flickr

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

The Disrespectful Nature Of My Generation Needs To Stop

Why choosing phone games over a Holocaust survivor was my breaking point.


While many students that attended Holocaust survivor Hershel Greenblat's talk were rightfully attentive, I noticed, out of the corner of my eye, a few outlier students tapping away on their phones. They were minute movements, but inappropriate nonetheless.

Immediately I became infuriated. How, I thought, fuming, did my generation become so blithely unaware to the point where we could not proffer basic respect to a survivor of one of the most horrific events in human history?

Perhaps the students were just texting their parents, telling them that the event would run a bit long. 10 minutes later, my eyes diverted from Greenblat back to the students. They were still on their phones. This time, I could see the screens being held horizontally—indicating a game or a show was being played. I wanted to get up, smack the distractions out of their hands, and ask them why they thought what they were doing was more important than a Holocaust speaker.

I will not waste any more time writing about the disrespectful few. Because they could not give Greenblat the time of their day, I will not give them mine. Instead, I want to focus on a massive trend my generation has mistakenly indulged ourselves in.

The Greenblat incident is only an example of this phenomenon I find so confusing. From young, it was instilled in me, probably via Chinese tradition, that elders should be respected. It is a title only revoked when unacceptable behavior allows it to be, and is otherwise maintained. I understand that not everybody comes from a background where respect is automatically granted to people. And I see that side of the story.

Why does age automatically warrant respect? It is the fact that they have made it this far, and have interesting stories to tell. There are exceptions, perhaps more than there are inclusions.

But this fact can be determined by the simple act of offering an elderly person your seat on public transportation. Sure, it can be for their health, but within that simple act is a meaningful sacrifice for somebody who has experienced more than you.

Age aside, at Greenblat's talk, majority of the disrespect shown might not have been agist. Instead, it could have been the behavior students just there for the check-in check-out extra credit that multiple classes and clubs were offering. While my teachers who advertised the event stressed the importance of attendance not just for the academic boost, but for the experience, I knew that some of the more distracted students there must have been those selfish, ignorant, solely academic driven cockalorums.

I stay hopeful because majority of my classmates were attentive. We knew to put aside our Chromebooks, regardless of note-taking, and simply listen to what Greenblat had to offer.

It would be wrong to label my generation as entitled— that's a misnomer for the generation before. We are still wavering between the line of automatic respect and earned respect, but we need to set a line for people whom we know the stories of. Especially a Holocaust survivor.

Related Content

Facebook Comments