You are sitting in bed watching the nightly news, your wife asleep at your side, your kids tucked away. There’s also a 9mm handgun stowed away in your nightstand, right next to your copy of the King James Holy Bible. All seems well. That is, until you hear a shuffling coming from downstairs, indicative of a robbery. You find that 9mm handgun, turn the safety off, and make your way to your kitchen on the main floor. The thief is predictably armed and when he sees you, he pulls out his weapon. It is a standoff, you against this thief, both holding the guns you legally acquired. The thief shoots wide, an obvious attempt to scare you. Yet, you can see in his eyes that he is equally as terrified to be at the end of your gun. He does not want to hurt anyone; that is not why he is here. Still, he shot at you, therefore shooting him would be self-defense. But can you pull the trigger?

​

         A self-defense argument is popular among gun rights activists, and rightfully so. Any sane person wants to be able to protect him or herself. But there are so many other ways to have that defense without the use of a gun because when it comes down to it, the odds of the average civilian having the resolve to shoot another person are slim. Gunshot wounds are usually fatal, especially when given by someone who is nervous and untrained. And no mentally sound person wants to be the one to take another’s life, even in self-defense.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

        That is just one circumstance in which guns may or may not come in handy. However, guns also come in handy in other ways, such as shooting up a school full of children or a nightclub of oblivious young adults or murdering a singer giving autographs after her concert. I am not saying that guns need to be eliminated in totality; that would be absurd and virtually impossible. But we can all agree that something needs to happen to address the problem of mass gun violence in this country.

​

        “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." The Second Amendment can remain in place. Some people might say otherwise, but I am not that person. People can have their guns, so long as there are regulations in place. There needs to be more thorough background checks, mental evaluations, and possibly even a registry. Those will not infringe on the rights of people who want to keep a handgun in the privacy of their home unless they are proven to be unfit to own a weapon, which is the point of all of this. So what is all the hullabaloo about taking away the right to bear arms?

​

         Many will also argue that most mass shootings are done by people who acquired their guns via the black or grey market. This is a fact and one I will not even attempt to deny. However, there is still a possibility of fixing this. Let those criminals have their guns, but also implement better security to monitor when and where those guns get it. For example, upon entering Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida, one must have their bags checked and then walk through a metal detector. I experienced this first hand and lost a jar of pickles as a result because the liquid could have been hazardous. As annoyed as I was about losing my pickles, the security made me feel infinitely safer about going into a place crowded with thousands of strangers. This sort of security may make a school or a college campus or a church feel ominous or “unsafe”. But that is the price America should have to pay in order to keep their guns at home. Pro-gun activists tend to say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I’ll be the first to agree with that statement. Guns are a means to an end, but the individuals wielding those weapons make the deliberate decision to choose who lives and who dies. There should be a bigger focus on the apprehension of those criminals rather than the condemnation of citizens with a permit to own a handgun. We cannot eliminate guns due to a variety of reasons, but you can bet that we can ensure the safety of the general population who are living under the constant presence, and sometimes threat, of those guns.

​

         Yes, gun violence has statistically gone down dramatically in the past twenty years. That has been proven many times over. But try telling that to the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and all the loved ones of the 50 people from the Orlando club that are now lying in graves. Tell that to the family and fans of Christina Grimmie, who was shot at point-blank range two days before the Orlando club shooting during a signing and was subsequently laid to rest by her parents at the age of 22. Tell that to all the parents who outlived their children because they were murdered at Sandy Hook. Gun violence may have gone down, but those people still lost someone, maybe even multiple people, and no chart or graph or statistic is going to bring them back.

       

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

          So, the next time you want to argue that stricter gun control will inhibit your ability to be a true American citizen because you will lose your precious handgun, know that the American dream is safe. You will not lose your guns, even though people have lost their lives. However, everyone should be willing to agree to better gun security because it will do nothing except help reduce those gun violence statistics even more, thus ensuring that the ability to continue owning a gun remains intact.

​

Back to Other