Period 11: Gun Control and Gun Rights

With the recent Las Vegas incident, the popular topic of gun-control has resurfaced. Because of the Second Amendment, guns could not be completely restricted unless this Amendment were changed. However, something needs to be done, whether it be that more restrictions are put in place, or that background checks be done on all gun owners. Regardless, the current efforts to minimize gun violence are insufficient and the recent massacre is proof. An article from the Guardian states, "The US is home to 88 guns for every 100 people and sees mass shootings more than 11 times as often as any other developed country.", the most recent one being the worst in modern U.S. history according to CNN. These weapons, although they are being used for evil purposes, are not the source of the evil. Instead, it is the people behind them. Despite this belief, the existence and availability of these weapons enables people to commit crimes such as this. For this reason, there is most definitely compelling interest for the government to limit gun possession. For those that are purchasing a gun for the first time it should be mandatory that they attend a safety course prior to purchasing the weapon, because without proper training it raises the risk of injury. While, this may limit the amount of accidental gun injuries/ deaths it will not limit the amount of homicides, as background checks are already in place in order to purchase a gun and killings are still happening. This is a result of the illegally obtained guns in the U.S and the mentality of the people who are using them to kill. This simply cannot be controlled, and if there was a way to prevent these kinds of people from having a gun, they would resort to other methods of killing. However, another factor that contributes to deaths is military personnel that come back from war and have PTSD. These men and women should have continuous metal health checks done before a gun is placed back in their hands in civilian life. An article from CNN states, “The Army reported a record-high number of suicides in July 2011, with the deaths of 33 active- and reserve-component service members categorized as suicides.” This doesn’t mean that all veterans should be stigmatized as violent or mentally ill, but it is just another preventative measure that can be taken to limit gun violence. Overall, if people are sick enough that they want to kill people they will find a way to do it regardless of whether or not they have access to guns, but at the least, more safety measures can be taken to prevent accidental gun violence.

Question: What do you think could possibly be done outside of just limiting guns to prevent gun violence? For example, more limitations on drug/ alcohol abuse.

@martin- I agree with you that the repeal of gun restrictions from the Obama administration was of no benefit to the American people. However, the availability of guns in the U.S may be the the number one cause of mass shootings but there have been several other mass murders that have taken place without the use of a gun. 9/11 happened because of a plane crashing into a building, the Boston Marathon took place because of homemade bombs, people have killed others by setting buildings on fire. So, how then, does it make sense that limiting guns will prevent mass murders/ killings. I don't know that there is an answer other than over time to change the mentality of society because of the rise in mass killings.

Why does it always seem to take a tragedy for the US to step back and look at it’s gun policies? According to the Guardian “At least 17 guns were found in his hotel room, according to official statements from law enforcement officials.” In addition, over 15 more firearms were found at his home in Mesquite, Nevada. It may not seem like a big deal to have that many guns, but the issue arises when it was found that the suspect was using bump stocks. A bump stock is a device that uses the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire shots in rapid succession, which simulates the ability of a fully automatic weapon. The video below from Vox describes how deadly this can be in relation to the recent Las Vegas shooting. I also read an article on Vox about the NRA’s stance on the devices. While the NRA thinks that gun control should be loosened by guaranteeing a right to carry, they also have restrictions on some devices such as the bump stocks. A reporter from Politico stated, “even the NRA seems skeptical about these modifications. The group actually bans them from its own firing range at NRA headquarters, due to safety concerns.” When I read this quote, my initial reaction was if the National Rifle Association thinks these devices are dangerous and should be banned then why aren’t they banned all around? To round out there is no way we can enforce gun control all at once. We need to start out smaller by first banning these bump stocks and see where it goes from there.


Bump stocks video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZCWjzQUM8
NRA article: www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16431694/nra-bump-stock-las-vegas-shooting

Q: If the use of bump stocks were banned in the U.S. before this tragic event, would it even have happened?

There is compelling government interest to limit gun possession in the United States. There should be limitations on gun control. Especially on guns that can cause mass amounts of damage should not just be given to any citizen to have. I understand that this could hurt and change the second amendment but back when these were put into place they did not have the technology we have today or even think that there would have to be a limitation on it. Even though people can still get guns, it is still better to try and stop them then to do nothing at all. Also, there is a more valid reason to limit certain guns than others. Different guns have different capability. I do not know a lot about guns ( only ever held one like 3 times ). But I know that some are stronger and more capable than others. Because there is a difference between a “Semi-automatic” which is slower and not as detrimental as an “automatic” that should have a lot more restrictions against them. The government plays a role when it comes to the conversation about gun rights versus gun control. The government can put in gun control laws that limit the making of selling and guns to people. This would restrict it to make it a lot safer. But like I said before though, no matter what, people will end up finding a way to get a gun. Also getting rid of them or making them harder to get could just lead to people wanting to get them even more. Even though this could make it a bit safer it would end up going against the second amendment “The right of the people to keep and bear firearms”. What do you think the government should do with firearms, limit them or keep it how it is and preserve the second amendment?