By James Duong
Due to recent tragedies, many people are demanding more gun control laws. Our nation is divided into people who are pro- and anti- gun. One might think that not having guns at all is the perfect situation, but this might not be the solution since both sides are not insisting to get rid of guns once and for all. The anti-gun side wants to enforce strict control on guns since they believe that it will solve many of the problems the United States faces today. The pro-gun side believes that a strict control on guns will not solve anything and only make matters worse. Despite their differences, I firmly believe that both sides truly want to improve America, not hurt it.
First, gun control results in dramatic decreases of firearm-related deaths. For every 100,000 people in the U.S, 12.21 people are harmed in firearm-related incidents. According to the 2016 National Vital Statistics Report, there were 505 incidents of accidental firearm deaths. These unintentional deaths from firearms are mainly caused by availability to firearms in houses. Over 1,690,000 kids under the age of 18 are living in a house with an unlocked firearm. Also, according to Gifford’s Law Center, gun deaths have increased by 16% from 2014 to 2017. This is also due to the mass production of guns. An increase in production, of course, means an increase in sales. Again, an argument can be made from gun owners who say that their guns are for self-defense. This argument is applicable for some people, but the chances are slim. The Washington Post reported that for every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime. Having more gun control in California means our state can spend more on education and caring for the mental health of people rather than spending it to police gun-related incidents. The anti-gun side argues that having strict gun control will provide additional safety for people while freeing up resources to combat mental health struggles and other pressing issues.
Gun owners and advocates often argue that criminals will still find ways to acquire guns even in the presence of gun control. that of this issue is that the mood of gun owners would decrease. They will be frustrated and might try to sell the guns on the black market. Guns might sell at a high price in the black market since the supply is low, and the demand is high. Also many will argue that guns are not the problem. Fewer guns in the U.S will still not change people’s mentality and heart. Gun owners suggest laws that can help people’s mentality and not just take the object away. Ordinary people also think that guns are not the main problem. A poll by The Washington Post and ABC found that 77% of Americans say that monitoring people’s mental health would have prevented multiple situations. The idea brought up in the other is about the slim possibility of people using it for self-defense is also misleading. It is extremely hard to find out who used a gun for self defense and no did not. Overall, this side enforces an idea where making a strict control on guns will actually not benefit society due to gun owner emotion worsening, and not addressing people’s emotions.
I believe we should not necessarily just remove guns altogether and make strict laws. This will affect our country and divide our country further into two sides. We should all agree on just healing people’s emotions and helping them out. Also, I do agree, we should have a more proper and formal way of obtaining guns. This will solve people’s emotion and reassure people emotion towards their safety.