Gun Control

February 29, 2000. Buell Elementary School. Dedrick Owens, only 6 years old, killed fellow classmate Kayla Rolland, also 6 years old. The weapon? A .32-caliber semiautomatic pistol. He brought the gun to school after finding it in his uncle’s home. Dedrick was too young to be convicted of a felony, and instead his uncle pleaded no contest for involuntary manslaughter and spent about 2 and a half years in prison.

Sure, we blame the uncle for keeping his firearm in an insecure location. But a 6-year-old shooter? That’s just ridiculous. While this incident may be rare, it illustrates just one of the possible consequences of living in a country rife with rifles. The United States leads the world with 3.601 per 100,000 gun-related deaths in a year. Applied to the total population, that results in over 11,000 deaths per year, nearly 8 times the rate of the second place country. How can the United States pride itself in providing a safe environment for all its citizens with these type of numbers?

The solution is to reduce the number of guns present in our society. Prevent shootings before they occur. Slowly increase the restrictions on gun ownership laws. Gun advocates will claim firearms are for self-defense. They will boldly stand by their recreational purposes, and they will cry foul upon infringement of the Constitution. But gun incidents in the United States far outnumber the world average. Less accessibility to guns will mean fewer gun-related incidents.

I must admit, guns play a huge role in protection against criminals. However, non-lethal weapons can perform the same duty. Tear gas, pepper spray, and even tasers can all be used to neutralize a potential criminal. They also lower the chance of being injury in a household accident, making them a more family-friendly option. What’s better? Your baby daughter getting pepper sprayed on her pants? Or your baby daughter getting shot in her leg?

Guns have a higher chance to kill the criminal. If a person truly needs weapons for self-defense, then the goal should be to incapacitate the intruder and only that. Any further consequences should be left to the courts and justice system. Civilians should not have the ability to kill a criminal. A citizen killing a robber during a burglary in self-defense is like the citizen imposing capital punishment on the robber. Our society does not need brave vigilantes. We do not need Robin Hoods or Batmans. We need citizens that can prevent violent situations from ocurring.

Although I personally believe shooting and hunting for recreation is tasteless, these activities still constitute a freedom many enjoy and must therefore must be accommodated. If civilian gun ownership greatly decreases, shooting ranges and hunting grounds can continue to prosper by permitting people to only use rental equipment. The range can offer a variety of guns and possibly even maintain guns reserved for specific people. When not in use, guns remain in a secure safe at the range, away from the public. With this plan, guns will stay in a safe, controlled environment at all times, preventing any danger to the general public.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Some people just own guns because they want to take full advantage of all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. However, there is much scrutiny upon our 2nd Amendment. Because of the wording, some believe that that the right to bear arms only applies when citizen when serving in the militia. The original purpose was to prevent government tyranny and enable citizens to fight back. However, gun owners today do not fight in a militia to overthrow a dictator. The 2nd amendment was conceived during a time when unstable governments ran rampant. That situation does not exist in the United States today.

I am not proposing a complete ban on firearms. That would be inconceivable and face too much opposition. We need to take baby steps in the right direction. For example, a civilian has absolutely no good reason to own a fully automatic machinegun. Eliminating that possibility steps in the right direction. We can also limit the amount of ammunition one can buy at one time. No one needs to have 500 bullets immediately ready at his or her disposal. We can make the application process more difficult, reducing the number of gun permits and license. These policies can provide a huge leap in making sure guns to not fall into wrong hands. A sweeping movement of gun reform is not necessary. A gun-free future may be desirable, but such a goal will likely never be achieved at all. But today, our nation can and must take steps to improve domestic safety.

April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech University. Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students and wounded 25 others before committing suicide. Despite being found mentally ill, he purchased 2 semiautomatic pistols and nearly 400 rounds of ammunition. The dealers should have never sold him the weapons in the first place, and they have no excuse for such a mistake. Tighter gun laws will go miles in stopping tragic gun-related deaths. Prevention is protection.

Bowling for Columbine. By Michael Moore. Dir. Michael Moore. Perf. Michael Moore. Dog Eat Dog Films, 2002. Film.

Endersby, Alastair. "Gun Control: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. Creative Commons Attribution, 2 Oct. 2000. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. .

"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/22/10. http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp