Why Public Ownership of Firearms Should Be Revoked

We see the headlines on news outlets every day: “8 Dead in Hair Salon Shooting,” “Hollywood Shooting Rampage,” “Boy In Critical Condition Following Celebratory Gunfire.” One can only wonder, how much more tragedy do we need?

Every year, thousands of Americans are either killed or injured by the use of firearms, both malignantly and incidentally. The lack of definite guidelines uniform throughout the states has contributed to a chaos. More and more civilians have thus reacted by implementing a gun into their household.  

Organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) claim that the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights allows for ownership of firearms; this also serves a dual purpose: protection whenever and wherever danger may arise. However, in our modern society, this is baseless.

Martial Law?

We do not reside in a militarized zone or face the fear of extenuating circumstances (ex. martial law). The only danger we have is ourselves, prone to anger management issues and sudden fits of rage. Arming us is simply providing fuel for the flame.

Since the prospect of mandating pedestrians to wear bullet-proof clothing is undesirable [and pricey], the only reasonable alternatives are to remove the gun market or impose stricter regulations. Removing the gun market would lead to a bevy of interesting scenarios, and possibly open up a black market of sorts. This realization takes us to the only rational option, an imposition of stricter regulations.

The problem is how different firearm regulations are from other regulations, such as alcohol. If a stance similar to that on alcohol was taken against firearms, not much change would arise. Drivers don’t tend to drive recklessly with a gun in the backseat, nor do they veer when walking straight. The furthest it could go is a heavy background check, with recommendations from peers and a certified psychologist (similar to a sports physical).

Limit Sales

With these must come restrictions, first and foremost the limiting of sales, so that one person couldn’t have the capability of purchasing 20 guns. A cap in the number of bullets could also reduce the number of homicides, as a killer couldn’t do as much damage with two bullets as he could with 12.

Altogether, new methods must be contemplated upon, as the trend of firearms violence continues on an upward slope. It is shameful that crime and violence has the possibility of running rampant without restriction. Whether it be compromising the gun market or imposing stricter regulations, a strong stance must be taken on the firearm issue. Too many lives have been lost and too much danger lies ahead for more time to be shed.