Arguments Against Gun Control

Another article looks at the Tucson shooting where six individuals were killed as an example (Kaveny, 2016). While the author agrees that the constitution protects the rights of gun owners, she makes the argument that semiautomatic weapons were not what the founding fathers had in mind though and that these type of weapons should not be allowed to be owned by the public (Kaveny, 2016). The author also believes that it would be beneficial to have to obtain a license to own firearms and to purchase insurance for possible damages along with further funding for mental health patients to help keep these mass shootings from happening again (Kaveny, 2016).

Every year 30,000 americans die from guns while others have the privilege to end up with a disability rather than dieing. The men and women who are diagnosed with a mental illness and obtain guns often commit suicide and crimes such as mass shootings, and murders. Because healthcare providers don't report the mental illness’ of many people to the FBI these people are able to pass a background check when they attempt to purchase a gun. Although the second amendment allows people the right to bear arms, it has become easy for the mentally ill to acquire guns and gun control should be strengthened for this very reason.

After recent tragic events, such as the mass shooting that took place at a musical festival in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 1st, 2017, which left over 50 people dead, and over 500 others injured (Bui, Zapotosky and Barrett), the topic of stricter gun controls in America has become a controversial topic for many people in our society. Those in favor of stricter gun controls believe that by implementing laws that would make it more difficult for the average person to purchase and own guns, the result would be a decreased number of mass shootings and other gun deaths in our country. Typically, with these proposed laws, it is suggested that potential gun owners should be required to undergo mental health screening, in addition to regular background checks to see if the person has a history of any mental illnesses or past crimes. However, reducing the number of mass shootings and other gun deaths in America is not as simple as just implementing new laws.

Dangerousness, not mental incompetence, limits gun rights. I know you opposed to this, but I think you should reconsider because, people who are mentally ill are a danger

Some of the guns used in these shootings were purchased illegally, but in most cases, such as the Virginia Tech shooting, they were purchased legally (Griffin). In order to buy guns legally the stores must run a background check on the person, and currently there is no way of knowing if the person suffers from a mental illness especially if the person has never gone to a doctor for it. While the background checks are necessary they are not all that helpful because most of the crimes committed with guns involve guns that were purchased illegally. The people who are buying guns legally are typically purchasing them for self and home protection These people will most likely only shoot their guns at a range. Surveys of inmates have shown that if they thought that there was a gun in a house they would avoid it. If there were better means of stopping illegal guns the number of crimes committed with guns would drop

Every year thirty-thousand Americans die from guns while others have the “privilege” to end up with a disability rather than dying. The men and women who are diagnosed with a mental illness and obtain guns often commit suicide and crimes such as mass shootings, and murders. Because health care providers don't report, the mental illnesses of many people to the FBI, these people are able to pass a background check when they attempt to purchase a gun. Criminals now have more access than ever to gus because of the unlicensed gun sellers at the gun shows. Although the second amendment allows people the right to bear arms, it has become easy for the mentally ill and criminals to acquire guns and gun control should be strengthened for this very reason.

On the news this morning, there was a government official that made an extraordinarily prominent point; he said that whenever there has been a monumental disaster in this country, the government never hesitates to take immediate action. The case isn’t always so with gun control, however. Every single time there is a gun related disaster, government officials say now is not the time to push for gun control laws. While President Obama was in office, he passed an executive order that would prevent people with mental disorders from obtaining firearms. Congress has refused to enforce the order. An order that could have prevented countless tragedies. How many guns are in circulation at the moment with owners that are mentally unstable? It makes one wonder, could it have been prevented? There is also the ethical issue facing health care professionals about the privacy of their patients. If one were forced to turn over such damning information to the government, whereas it can be assumed that there would also be a dramatic decrease in the amount of reported cases of mentally unhealthy people receiving treatment or even acknowledgment. The reason for this is that people will not risk their right to own a gun for anything. If this means abstaining from receiving proper health care or therapy, then they simply will not. While applauding the bills intention to make firearms less available to people that would not use it for the right intentions, gun rights advocates sharply criticized the bill, claiming it infringed on the Second Amendment rights of Americans’ (Vitale 1). President Trump recently signed a bill that removed the regulations placed on people with mental illnesses that would limit the purchasing of firearms of people that were deemed unfit (Vitali 1). “‘Republicans always say we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. But the bill signed into law today undermines enforcement of existing laws that Congress passed to make sure the background check system had complete information,’” as said by Sen. Chris Murphy, one of the leading gun control advocates in Congress (Vitale 1).

History relating to the issue of gun violence and mass shooting can be dated back for decades. One of the most common misconceptions is that the cause of these shootings is not the availability of but that mental illnesses of those that obtain the guns are. However, there is little to no evidence that truly supports this argument. As stated in the article, Mass Shootings and Mental Illness written by James L. Knoll IV and D. Annas, “The overall contribution of people with serious mental illness to violent crimes is only about 3%. When these crimes are examined in detail, an even smaller percentage of them are found to involve firearms. (p.81/90)” This misconception among many can be attributed, as outlined in the article, to today’s media coverage.

Individuals with mental illness should not be able to purchase firearms. Jason Matejkowski explains, in his article entitled, “Exploring the Potential of Stricter Gun Restrictions for People with Serious Mental Illness to Reduce Homicide in the United States,” how individuals with mental illness are now limited to purchasing firearms due to mass shootings: “Recent mass shootings at the hands of individuals purported to have a serious mental illness (SMI) have motivated efforts to reduce gun deaths in the US by further limiting access to firearms by individuals with a current or historical mental health problem” (363). In addition, “With regard to relevant firearm laws, both federal and state laws forbid the selling or disposal of firearms and ammunition to an individual who ‘has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution’ or is ‘mentally incompetent’” (363). To reduce the number of deaths that occur each year, there should be stricter laws about who can purchase firearms.

James Mallon once said that “Gun control is like the annoying family member you hate to see. No matter how much you disdain seeing them or talking to them, eventually a climatic event, family reunion, or holiday forces you to have interaction with them.” Gun control may be that elephant in the room given all the recent tragic events involving firearm use, but ignoring that elephant is no solution. Stricter gun laws, as well as other forms of gun control may be the final viable resort to ending the onslaught that are mass shootings.

Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn't get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place.” (M. Robbins) Mell Robbins is another citizen who he believes that “strengthening gun control won't stop the next mass shooter, but changing ... the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might help reduce crime.” (M. Robbins) He refers to multiple incidents that the U.S. has had mass shooting incident and one in particular he talks about is the incident in Isla Vista, California. Where a gunman named by Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California campus in Santa Barbara. (M. Robbins) Elliot Rodger had purchased three guns legally passed all requirement and federal background check in one of the most highly toughest gun control laws in the country. Mell Robbins states and asks that “In this climate, how did Rodger succeed in his lethal plan? It wasn't the gun laws; it was the lack of common sense mental commitment laws.” (M. Robbins) He goes on in this article stating that gun laws are not the problem and that before selling a firearm the state needs to check the persons mental status just so that they now they will be accounted for or if they draw a concern they can take actions on providing help

A study by Dr. Jason Matejkowski, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Social Welfare, explored the criminal records of over 500 convicted murderers. The study finds mental illness was associated with a lower likelihood of using a firearm during the crime. Looking at the statistics and studies, it is quite obvious that an extremely small portion of firearm related violence has occurred from those with a mental illness. If this is the case, why does the government focus on passing more laws specifically targeting the mentally ill? The main response from the government has been to prohibit certain groups of people from buying these weapons; rather, the government should focus more on tightening gun access for all Americans instead of targeting the mentally ill – who comprise of only a small percentage of firearm related accidents. Instead of passing more bills that don’t really accomplish anything, the laws currently in place should be strengthened and more strongly enforced in order to limit the amount of firearm related violence in

More times than not when the issue of gun control is brought into conversation the Second Amendment is the center of attention and many believe that “gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment” (Metzel and Kenneth). The primary reason for the creation of this amendment was to make certain that every person could legally bear arms, allowing individuals and families to feel safe in their own homes. It is safe to say that homes should be a secure place to lay down at night, and owning a weapon can allow one to have a sense of peace. Therefore, viewing the big picture of gun control can leave one opposing the whole idea. A person knows that they are going to be smart and rational with a firearm, but they need to consider how another person is going to function with that kind of power in their hands. Every person in this world functions differently, and mental illness plays a huge role in the way a person’s brain works. Within the United States since 1970 it is statistically proven that at least 60% of people who committed a mass shooting exhibited symptoms of paranoia, delusions, or depression, before committing

In the article, “The ban on mentally ill people buying guns wasn't ever based on evidence”, Jeffery Swanson states that “the mentally ill are no more dangerous to others” when they have equal access to guns. Also according to public behavioral health system, the severe mentally ill were no more likely to harm others (about 213 vs. 217 gun crimes per 100,000 people per year) This means that 213 normal people use a gun to harm others while 217 mentally ill used a gun to harm another. This shows that there is no point of restricting guns from the mentally ill if the mentally ill are no more dangerous than normal people. If the U.S. want to reduce the number of innocent killings, then guns should be restricted from

First, I believe that how guns are used is up to the person holding it. Guns can't do anything by themselves, it is the person who has the gun that decides where it shoots. Gun control will not stop or help to prevent violence; an aggressive person does not need a gun to be violent, there are many other ways for one person to hurt another person. Taking guns away from all people will not make the violent ones less violent. It may even make them more violent than they already are. Violent people will always find a way to be violent. Taking guns away from everyone does nothing to prevent people from the possibility of being hurt, robbed, and killed by others. I believe that gun control will not last as we have already had something similar to