In recent weeks, several national tragedies have again pushed the controversial issue of gun control to the forefront of American political debate. Following the shooting deaths of over 50 innocent individuals at a concert in Las Vegas in early October, and the more recent deaths of 27 worshippers at a small Texas church, numerous questions have been raised about the state of U.S. gun policy, and what changes can be made to make Americans safer. Sadly however, these shootings were only part of a continued trend of massive numbers of gun related deaths, as high as 92 a day, according to some sources.  Although the idea of gun policy change does enjoy widespread support among large sections of society, exactly what these alterations will be and how they will be implemented is a matter of heated debate.

On October 1, 2017, a deranged gunman opened fire on a massive crowd attending a country music concert in Las Vegas. In the ensuing chaos, over 50 were killed and over 500 wounded. Although this was the largest mass shooting in US history, it was only one of the approximately 317 mass shootings that have taken place since 1999. For days after the event, theories abounded regarding whether or not any laws could have been passed to prevent incidents like these, and whether or not passing more strict gun laws to prevent mentally ill and other dangerous people from acquiring firearms could inadvertently infringe on the Second Amendment Constitutional rights of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens. I personally believe that there is plenty of room to pass legislation that prevents dangerous individuals and terrorists from causing massive amounts of damage, while at the same time making sure average, hard-working Americans have the ability to defend themselves, should the need arise.

In the wake of these two recent mass shootings, attention was drawn to the fact that the gunman has used a device known as a bump-stock to allow his semiautomatic weapon to fire at a higher pace like a fully automatic weapon. This development was likely the main factor in why so many innocent people were killed in Las Vegas, and I believe they should be banned from purchase. In many ways, a large percentage of mass shootings could have been dramatically reduced in scope or prevented altogether if dangerous devices like these weren’t allowed to fall so easily into the hands of evil individuals. And while most do support the Second Amendment that gives so many the ability to defend themselves, it is important to ask if military-style weapons are really necessary to achieve this.  Furthermore, Congress can very easily act to implement this much needed change, as bump stocks effectively transform weapons into fully automatic firearms, which were banned since the 80s, and numerous polls and surveys have found that large majorities of Americans, even most members of the NRA (National Rifle Association), approve of this measure.

Another step that can be taken to reduce gun violence is to eliminate the gun show loophole, which allows for people to buy guns from private owners without passing a series of federal background checks, and as long as there isn’t a serious or obvious reason to believe they’d commit a crime. This policy has increasingly shown that it is ineffective, as numerous events like the Columbine High School massacre, VA Tech shooting, and Sandy Hook Shooting involved weapons that were bought at a gun show, although not by the perpetrators.

Despite the fact that firearms have been used to commit evil actions, I do believe that firearms should be available to Americans if purchased legally and if the buyers pass appropriate background checks. Although our attention is often directed by mass shootings and incidents of terrorism to the great harm they can cause, it is still true that guns have enabled many individuals, often times in rural or high crime areas, to defend themselves from attackers during the time it takes authorities to arrive.  

Government studies have shown that each year, hundreds of thousands of Americans use guns to protect themselves during crime situations and home invasions, and that in a vast majority of situations, no weapons use is needed to deter criminals, actually reducing the probability of violent confrontations. While tightening gun sale loopholes is a method that should be used to protect the public safety, I don’t believe that any legislation should be used in a manner that deprives individuals of the basic right to defend themselves, or the Constitutional protections produced by the Founding Fathers who intended that the people shouldn’t be dependent on others — or the government — for the protection of themselves and their families.

In closing, the issue of gun control is certainly a divisive issue, but one that can be solved if individuals on both sides of the debate are willing to compromise and understand the fact that gun violence won’t stop anytime soon unless real action is taken. Although it will be extremely difficult, it can achieved if good people on both sides recognize that this an issue that is vitally important to the well being and future of our nation.