316 people are shot in America on a daily basis, 22 of them being children. Yet some will protect their “right to bear arms” with their lives. The right to bear arms was passed on December 15, 1791, back when people would have shootouts over disagreements. One might think as time would change, so would the laws. But alas, people still want to have their guns. This phenomenon is interesting. Despite 230 years passing, the attitudes remain unchanged.
Many argue that it would be infringing on their human rights to take away their guns. This seems counterintuitive, as to why would it be a human right to carry a weapon designed to take the lives of others. Times change, the world changes, shouldn’t our laws change as well? 100 years ago, women couldn’t even vote, clearly changes are made regarding human rights all the time.
Several countries have laws that restrict or ban guns entirely. Among those countries is Japan which has reduced gun deaths to miniscule numbers. Many pro-gun supporters would argue that people would still find ways to get firearms. This argument is flimsy. People always find ways to break laws. Looking at Japan, their gun policies work, fewer people die from guns. Someone could always run into a building with a knife, but could say a knife take so many lives in such little time? People may find ways to get guns, but the laws save people’s lives. Currently, people can get mass-murder weapons at their leisure. Would it not make sense that fewer people would die if these weapons were banned? At one point, 60% of all homicides were by gun as were 50% of suicides. Guns enable people to take lives. Regardless of whether the original owners had no intention of using them to take a life, there is always the risk. Risk comes with everything, but when it comes to guns, that risk is unimaginably multiplied.
Regardless of whether all guns should be banned, some guidelines desperately need to be employed. 50% of mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 employed high-capacity magazines. When it comes to the main argument of “guns help with self-defense”, this argument is null. Why would one person need to have a military weapon to protect oneself? These guns are killing machines. They aren’t used to protect one’s own life, they are designed to take them. Why should a civilian have a weapon that was designed for war. Self-defense isn’t even a main use for guns. If not for self defense, why do people really need their guns?
Additionally, having guns around the house creates an unsafe atmosphere for people in general. For those who are domestcilly abused, their risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present. That is a risk for millions worldwide. Aside from the ongoing issue and hardships of domestic violence, these people have to live in fear if a gun is present. Among these deaths, there are 430 accidental deaths per year due to guns. These rates are high among young children. The “screening process” for guns is always thought to be the thing that must be improved. But clearly, no matter how much you screen people, they will still be irresponsible. How could someone be responsible enough to have a gun if they can’t keep it far enough away from where fatal accidents can occur?
Guns take lives. To encourage their use only encourages more death. The gun epidemic in this country leads to uncountable fatalities and this cannot go unnoticed.