Thursday, January 21, 2016

How do we Solve Gun Violence?

Data shows that 32% of Americans either own a gun or live with someone who does. "Everytown" research shows that 133 mass shootings have taken place between January of 2009 and July of 2015. In majority of these mass shootings was the gun purchased legally by the shooter. And in a crime study highlighted by the "Washington Examiner", it was exposed that in most mass shootings a handgun was used instead of an assault weapon.

Given the facts provided above, guns should be banned across the nation. However, even with repealing gun laws people would still find a way to obtain them. Getting rid of guns will not prevent mass shootings, even though we would like to believe that it would. Increasing the difficulty of a person's ability to receive a gun license will not do much either (considering there are many gun owners who lack a license). While some people may defend owning a gun for the purpose of protection, hunting, etc., none of the purposes for ownership take away from the fact that the owners are fully capable of using guns harmfully.

While a hunter may be prone to use a shotgun and a person who desires security may be prone to use a handgun, no one should be eligible to own an automatic gun. Don't get me wrong, guns are guns. But for what reason would someone need a machine gun. In my opinion, only the military should carry (automatic) guns. It bothers me that people are proud to be gun owners. When hearing the word gun my mind simultaneously thinks of the word kill. The two are nearly synonymous to me. Re-referencing my disgust in a gun owners pride, I do not believe that most gun owners would be proud to be called killers.

I do not know how America should solve the issue of gun violence. Even in formally and lawfully solving the issue, we are uncertain if that will somewhat stop the violence. Yet, I do believe that we should still start somewhere because that is really all that we can do. Maybe the answer to the problem is traced further back beyond the marketing system.


  1. At the beginning I was a little confused on what your argument was. But once I kept reading I understood that you were arguing against ownership of assault weapons. I completely agree with your argument and think it is completely unnecessary to own any sort of weapon with that much firepower.

  2. I like the political cartoons you included, they boosted your argument. It seems like the United States glorifies guns way more than any other country with movies and video games, so if the "gun culture" changed maybe the laws could change too.

  3. I definitely agree with your argument, especially about owning assault rifles. One way to bolster your argument would be talking about how your proposed plan would affect the the second amendment.

  4. I'm sorry, but I'm not too sure if I see where you're coming from with your argument of America full-out banning guns from everyone, because there are definitely good and logical reasons for owning them, such as hunting and self-protection, which you mentioned, but never offered any other alternatives for. People who live in rural areas almost NEED a gun in their household for their protection, as police cannot arrive on the scene as quickly as they could in the city/suburbs, which is incredibly critical in a home-invasion situation. You say that all the purposes of ownership don't make up for the fact that one could use a gun maliciously, but I could say the exact same things about literally everything, knives and saws being an example, which are used for cooking and woodworking and PLENTY of other things. By your logic, just because someone has stabbed another with a knife, they should be BANNED due to the potential risk of injury to another human being, regardless of the benefit of having them. What about our hands? People have been choked/beaten to death, what are we going to do about that? I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, it's definitely a solution that could be put into place, especially regarding things like assault weapons that have no true alternative use other than killing, but what I'm trying to get through to you, I guess, is the fact that people are going to be malicious assholes with whatever you give them, whether it be a gun, a knife, a PVC pipe, or a dictionary. Something violent is bound to happen with pretty much any object at one point or another, and it's unavoidable unless you manage to change human nature or violate a lot of rights, so I don't see the benefit in banning an item due to it's malicious potential.