Kimberly Axton California

Gun Control Is Unnecessary

Everyone thinks we need gun control but we already have laws in place to do this.

Dear Mr. or Madame President

 I'd like to address a very popular, recurring topic, gun control. It is my belief that this isn't as necessary as everyone seems to think it is. There are better ways to prevent these violent attacks that involve firearms without upsetting every gun-holding, Second Amendment-following American by taking away the very objects they use to protect themselves. I come from a family where the animals we hunt are our main source of food during the off season. Rifles are the weapons we mainly use while hunting, if we enact on gun control then you are taking away many family's origin of there nourishment.

    People have taken many preventative measures in attempts to stop these horrible occurrences. For example, the article entitled "Do States With Strict Gun Laws Have Fewer Gun Deaths? Yes, But It's Not That Simple" explains, "Looking at 120,000 deaths over a four-year period, researchers concluded that a "higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually." (Press). As a result of strict gun laws in some states there are less gun related deaths. Rigid laws may be useful in some states but complete control isn't necessary as a whole. These stern laws that some states use are a better alternative to removing the right to bare arms from the country entirely.

    There are many causes for the concern with this rising issue. An example of this, the attack that left "Three people are dead and another is in critical condition after a shooting Monday morning at a Marion County blueberry farm, deputies said." (County)., or "A high-profile shooting, like the June 17 crime that left dead nine members of a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, is typically followed by calls for greater gun control, along with counter arguments that the best way to stop gun crimes is with more guns." (Pappas). Both tragic instances tat involve guns and violent misconduct of our privilege.    

   Some people believe that in order to achieve gun control we need to abolish the Second Amendment, I believe that this is not to be considered, as does the supreme court who says, "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." (B). In other words, they believe that the Second Amendment should remain standing and they will take no further action to remove it. If the measure pro-gun control activist wish to take aren't necessary, then gun control itself isn't necessary either.

    There are two main perspectives on this issue, for and against, but there are many perspectives on how to deal with these situations. One of these is whether or not teachers should be able to carry a weapon on campus. Kevin Trump, Arming Teachers and School Staff, argues "“School districts considering arming teachers and school staff with guns would take on significant responsibility and potential liabilities that I firmly believe are beyond the expertise, knowledge-base, experience, and professional capabilities of most school boards and administrators,” Trump said.  He added that school board members, superintendents, principals, teachers, school safety experts, and public safety officials he has talked with around the nation consistently do not believe that educators and school support staff should be armed." (“Arming Teachers and School Staff - School SecuritySchool Security”). He states that this isn't just his opinion, "“The vast majority of teachers want to be armed with textbooks and computers, not guns,” said Kenneth S. Trump, President of National School Safety and Security Services, in response to the national discussion on arming teachers and school staff, and armed volunteers in schools." (“Arming Teachers and School Staff - School SecuritySchool Security”). Arming teachers is one of the possible preventative measures against these vicious manifestations.

In conclusion, complete control isn't imperative to make america safer. There are smaller, less angering ways. 


Kimberly A.