The topic of gun control has become very popular to discuss nowadays due to the rise in crimes associated with guns. Some people believe that stricter gun laws would prevent mass shootings and reduce crime. However, the opposing side believes that gun control is ineffective. Different people on opposing sides interpret the second amendment in various ways as well. I believe that strict gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Banning guns and enforcing strict gun control is ineffective because it will still be accessible to criminals and instead, law abiding citizens will have difficulty gaining access to guns which will deter them from being able to defend themselves or others.
People from different political views interpret the Second Amendment in various ways. Some people say that the first part of the Second Amendment which states, “A well regulated Militia… ” means that there can be gun ownership but within a within a collective state militia. However, from the District of Columbia vs Heller court case, the Supreme Court says that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in militia service, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.” I agree with the supreme court interpretation of the Second Amendment because I believe that normal, law abiding citizens, should be able to defend themselves or others from criminals. Without the Second Amendment I feel as if the government would become too powerful and the Second Amendment balances out the power.
There are many situations where a gun can do good when handed into the hands of the right people. For example in Texas where open carry of firearms is legal, during the First Baptist Church shooting in Sutherland springs, Texas, the shooter Devin Kelley was stopped by a man named Willeford because he showed up with a rifle. If gun control was enforced then it would have made the situation difficult because the man probably would have not been able to stop the shooting if he did not have a gun. However, there should definitely be stricter background checks so people know who they are handing out guns to. Part of the reason criminals are able to buy a legal gun is because of the failure of entering information into a federal database. These databases are used during background checks, and when a failure like that occurs, it allows criminals to get through and purchase a gun. Most democrats believe that banning guns or enforcing stricter gun laws would reduce crimes such as shootings. I believe this claim is not fully thought out because if you think about it, drugs are also illegal in the United States.This however, does not prevent people from transporting drugs, selling them, or using them. This connects back to the fact that if you ban guns, that does not mean all of the guns will vanish from earth and no one will ever have access to them. Criminals will always find a way around the law. That’s why they are called criminals, because they don’t follow rules. If the government were to ever ban guns, criminals will still have access to them. Instead, law abiding citizens will have no access, meaning it will be difficult to defend themselves or anyone else.
Mass shootings cannot be prevented by banning guns. Instead what the government can do is install professionally trained officers in schools that will protect the people inside effectively. Places like airports and banks are protected by armed officers, and in rare occasions a criminal does enter but they are not always successful in achieving their goal. This is because they are often forced to surrender by officers who are professionally trained. If inanimate objects like money is protected by armed officers, why shouldn’t kids be protected the same way? If guns are handed to the right people, they do not harm anyone.