We Need Substantial Gun Reform

               This issue has been debated into the ground for years but essentially nothing has changed, and our lawmakers refuse to address the problem, so I think it’s more than relevant. Last week there was a school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. 17 people were killed. This is the 34^th mass shooting this year. According to the gun violence archive there have been 7399 incidents of gun violence in 2018 alone. The shooter in this case obtained the gun used legally. To prevent the deaths of hundreds of innocent lives across the country there needs to be substantial gun reform. Countries across the world have implemented their own versions of gun control that have seen incredible results. British citizens don't have guns, Australia is heavily regulated, Japan has a near zero tolerance policy, and Germany has low violence rates because of strict laws.  There are a number of ways to do this with some of them more idealistic than realistic but nonetheless, something has to be done. I would personally like to see something like what they’ve been done in Australia. There they have banned semiautomatic weapons entirely. If this policy was implemented in the United States, we would see a dramatic reduction of mass killings. Though this isn’t enough. Gun violence would still happen, so we also need substantially stricter gun control laws to prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring them at all.  

               An argument can be made that even if you ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons, there would still be mass killings and shootings across the country. This may be true, but rifles and pistols can’t clear a room in a matter of seconds.  This would make these mass shootings much less deadly than they are today and allow the police to stop shootings faster. It wouldn’t be easy to ban semiautomatic weapons but a few billion out of the defense budget as a one-time purchase would do the trick. This is the most unrealistic of gun reform ideas, but I think it would be the most effective by far. The second amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for every citizen, but nowhere does it say automatic weapons designed for killing people. The constitution was the most liberal document in existence when it was drafted. There are institutions included for its amendment. While it’s not easy to get amendments to pass it has been done in drastic situations when the country has evolved beyond the constitution’s writing. Women’s suffrage, the banning and unbanning of alcohol and other civil rights amendments are included among these. Gun reform against semiautomatic weapons should be another.

               If it’s unrealistic for automatic guns to be bought out by the government, if this isn’t feasible, then the process of buying weapons need to be more restrictive and much more difficult. Laws need to be in place to prevent people from walking into gun shows and buying them in the same day. The process of legally purchasing weapons need to have a more checks. The vetting process can’t be so simple that someone on a terror watch list with a history of mental illness can buy a gun and get it in the same week. This would prevent violent students and other individuals from being able to acquire these weapons so quickly. A more thorough vetting process would prevent these individuals form being able to get these guns in the first place.

               One of the most common arguments used by the NRA and gun advocates is that in order to prevent these mass killings, there would only need to be someone with a firearm to shoot the person doing the attacking. Statistically this just isn’t realistic. I’ve never heard any examples of someone who was able to successfully stop or prevent a mass shooting by shooting them first aside from undercover police officers. I would argue that this would contribute to the mass panic and hysteria that happens during these massacres. Someone with a gun shooting at another person with a gun could easily be mistaken for gang warfare and just make the situation worse. Two people in a firefight isn’t going to make the situation any better. How are the police supposed to know who’s the attacker and who’s the “good guy” when bullets are flying? A vigilante trying to kill a shooter doesn’t have the training to deal with that kind of a situation. There’s no amount of weapon training or target practice that could prepare someone for that kind of situation. The NRA might argue that this kind of training could be provided, but the only people who should have this training are the police. If the average civilian could just stand up and kill a shooter then we would live in an anarchy state with vigilantes running around thinking that they are the police. The police are another part of the problem. Officers with histories of violence and mental illness are also contributing to killings. These vetting processes and background checks need to be extended to police officers even more than the average person.

               Mass shootings and gun violence has brought the issue of gun reform to the attention of nearly all citizens in the U.S. To prevent the mass execution of citizens, police officers, and even children the country needs substantial gun reform. Better vetting processes, longer waiting periods, and mental health checks can improve gun control, but unfortunately, I think the best way to prevent mass shootings is through the complete ban of semiautomatic weapons throughout the country. 

By: Spencer White