Taking guns away won’t work; background checks are better
September 25, 2017
Gun control has been a hot topic in recent years. It’s the debate between raising enforcement laws or restricting the amount and type of guns a person in the United States can own.
Statistics show that, in recent years, firearms are responsible for most of the deaths in the nation.
That includes everything from homicides and suicides to accidents. In 2013, the highest recorded number of gun-related deaths in the United States was 33,636.
Also, many incidents and tragedies have occurred such as mass shootings. I remember sitting in my high school English class when we took a moment of silence for the many victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.
Statistics have also shown that 46 percent of people in the United States support tougher gun control laws and 54 percent support more lenient to nonexistent laws.
However, the question we should be asking is not whether we should keep creating gun control laws and keep them heavily enforced. This is the real question we should all be thinking about: What is in the country’s best interest that will keep us safe?
Now that you know the facts on the negatives of having so much access to guns, let me show you the side of gun control laws that hinder us.
Imagine new, tougher gun control laws have been heavily enforced and you are no longer allowed to own a gun because you are simply a civilian.
You’re at home by yourself and suddenly you encounter a person trying to break into your home. You don’t have gun, so what do you protect yourself with?
Being a Southern girl, I was raised on firearms. However, I was also taught the right ways to use them. I never point and shoot unless it meant my life was in danger. But how can I or anyone else keep safe if gun laws are so hard on civilians?
This has been a question asked by many gun owners, especially if they are the type of person to hunt or shoot on a range for interest.
From experience, the simple act of even claiming you have a firearm can be the deciding factor of whether or not you or your valuables will be safe for another day.
Recently, researchers have found that, due to the recent laws being enacted, gun sales have gone up and over the charts. Sales have increased 68 percent due to the fear of guns being taken away.
So, is it really beneficial to keep creating laws that indirectly have the opposite effect of your intentions? I think not.
However, there has been a solution on which many Americans can somewhat agree on: Restrictions and more thorough background checks.
Restrictions on the gun laws such as regular checking may be the solutions to keep the peace in our country.
In fact, 92 percent of the country supports expanded background checks (especially if it means they get to keep their guns).
If politicians actually looked at the polls that scientists and researchers have given out, they’d notice where the happy medium is.
I believe that if we can get to a meeting place in an agreement, then we can fix the problem. It may take a while, but I can see this problem coming to an end in the future.
I also believe that a certain amount of gun control is good. Restrictions, background checks and other types of actions will help America come to a peaceful agreement, and that is for the best interest of our country.
Jeff • Sep 28, 2017 at 8:36 am
Q: What do the following have in common?
the Nashville church attacker (September 24)
the Congressional baseball attacker (June 14)
the Orlando Pulse attacker (June 12, 2016)
the UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016)
the San Bernardino attackers (December 2, 2015)
the Colorado Springs attacker (October 31, 2015)
the Umpqua Community College attacker (October 1, 2015)
Alison Parker’s attacker (August 26, 2015)
the Lafayette movie theater attacker (July 23, 2015)
the Chattanooga attacker (July 16, 2015)
the alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attacker (Jun 17, 2015)
the Muhammad Carton Contest attackers (May 3, 2014)
the Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015)
the Santa Barbara attacker (May 23, 2014)
the Fort Hood attacker (April 2, 2014)
the Arapahoe High School attacker (December 13, 2013)
the D.C. Navy Yard attacker (September 16, 2013)
the Aurora movie theater attacker (July 20, 2012)
Gabby Giffords’ attacker (January 8, 2011)
the Fort Hood attacker (November 5, 2009)
the Virginia Tech attacker (April 16, 2007)
A: background checks (NICS) in conjunction with retail gun purchases from licensed dealers for the perpetrators’ guns used in the shootings
David • Sep 27, 2017 at 5:17 am
In the adult world, the word “COMPROMISE” means that each side in an issue, gives something up they value in order to meet in the middle and resolve the issue.
So the question to the anti gun nutters is rather simple 2 parts:
1) what have you given up in compromise that you anti gun nazis valued for all the previous 22,417 gun control laws implemented?
2) what right do you anti gun nazis value that you intend to give up for these new proposed laws?
Some fantasy made up right doesn’t count in the real world, a right affirmed in the BOR and the reason must be measurable in real math and GOVT. evidence and not in some wacked out Kenyesian fantasy math!
Since you anti gun extremists don’t value the 2A, you can’t lie and say that is what you give up. In fact history has show everyone how words, the freedom of speech, can be abused. We see how religious beliefs have been the greatest initiator of wars in all of history, one person god having a bigger tally-whacker than the other guys god, over 800 million killed.
Then we see how the next most dangerous idea, based on a collection of words to form a belief called socialism, has led to over 200 million deaths in the last century or so, because many civilians resisted such attempt’s.
So based on irrefutable history words and beliefs, allowed by the use of freedom of speech, is the greatest danger to safety of our children.
In the spirit of compromise, we suggest the Anti gun extremists give up some of their 1st amendment right and a few other COMPROMISES that will make it easier for the government to administer such activities, at your anti gun extremists expense though as its what you want, that seems reasonable.
Anti gun extremists will be required to wear an SOD Star of David, that way the police will know whom demands the police protect.
It will also simplify the criminals choices as robbing, raping, assaulting or killing SOD’s will result in fewer criminals being hurt or killed which is a good thing based on your position right!
Of course how are the anti gun extremists going to pay for the increased effort police must make on your behalf…oh that’s right, a barcode tattooed on your left inner forearm, that way the police can scan your arm every-time they have to perform a service above and beyond the normal duties and your bank account can be directly charged just like they want to do in the ACA/Obamacare, seems reasonable!
Now onto the reasonable compromise by the anti gun extremist on the 1st amendment!
The anti gun extremists 1st amendment right would be required to be licensed every 4 years, just like the 2A. The anti gun extremists would be open to random inspections by the govt. just like NFA items!
They will be required to pay a tax for every-time they use their freedom of speech in a public forum, just like the ammunition tax and ammunition registration in some states.
A paper work error in their submitting for more use of said right will be construed as a felony, just like the 10 categories of bad guys identified in USC18 Sec 922, which will now have an 11 category, anti gun extremist’s.
Letting a family member borrow their portion of that right, will require a background check before they receive permission to exercise their right, just like what is proposed in Washington State initiative 594.
The anti gun extremist will not be allowed to lie in their exercise of their right, cause if you need to lie to promote your agenda, there is nothing good that can be created by building lies upon lies!
Three time offenders will be deemed incurable and jailed for life.
Every different media forum the anti gun extremists wish to exercise their right will require government permission, and further taxation.
Any and all electronic devices the anti gun extremists possess or may possess will be registered and audited at any time the government so chooses.
If one anti gun extremist person in a household abuses that right and breaks the law, everyone in that family and household loses their 1A rights and are guilty!
See, you really wouldn’t be giving up your right, you would just be infringed upon a little, this year, a little more the next year, and the year after, and the year after.
But its for the safety of the children.
How is that not reasonable compromise eh!
Oh and that will change as we figure out more ways to infringe upon your 1A and whichever rights you value in the future……but that’s reasonable also!
Diamondback • Sep 26, 2017 at 5:59 pm
BG Checks violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and are totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, to wit: FIRST AMENDMENT right to a Presumption against the Imposition of PRIOR RESTRAINTS on the exercise of guaranteed rights/liberties/immunities which actually withstood the government’s claim of a NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST! SECOND AMENDMENT rights – self explanatory! FOURTH AMENDMENT rights to be secure in our persons, property, papers and effects (rights are property and effects)! FIFTH AMENDMENT rights to Due Process BEFORE being deprived of unalienable rights, to remain silent, to not self-incriminate (just answer any of those questions wrong!)! NINTH AMENDMENT – numerous “Prenumbra Rights” related to the Amendments mentioned and possibly other fundamental, individual rights retained! And, the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibition on states passing and enforcing laws which abridge the rights (“immunities”) of citizens, JUST TO GET STARTED!
tim • Sep 26, 2017 at 2:26 pm
The 92 percent number has been shown to be false, there for I suspect you whole argument has a hidden agenda. you have not looked for the actual data, you are just spitting out the democratic talking points. polls are manipulated on a daily basis. I will NOT surrender my rights, there will be no compromise.
Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger • Sep 26, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Hi, Megan. I’m the editor of The Zelman Partisans newsletter and a columnist. I prefer to correct falsehoods on the original column so that people who read it can see the corrections.
– “Gun control has been a hot topic in recent years. It’s the debate between raising enforcement laws or restricting the amount and type of guns a person in the United States can own.”
No, the “gun control” debate is not more laws vs. bans (which would be more laws). It’s between those who wish to violate rights to achieve _people_ control, vs. those who favor freedom and responsibility.
– “Statistics show that, in recent years, firearms are responsible for most of the deaths in the nation.”
Not even close. Medical errors kill far more people than firearms, just for a single example (statistically, you’re roughly 1,400 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by someone with a gun).
Perhap Ms. Wimbish meant violent criminal deaths. In which case, she still shouldn’t be using that 33,636 number because that includes justifiable homicides (such as self defense).
-“In fact, 92 percent of the country supports expanded background checks (especially if it means they get to keep their guns).”
I’m astonished that anyone can still claim that with a straight face. As noted in comments already, UBC (better called “preemptively prove your innocence”) generally fails miserably when people vote. Where it has passed, it’s only by slim margins way below 92%. UNH claimed to have run a survey showing 94% of New Hampshirites want PPYI. When the Democrats tried implementing it, hearings had to be held in the main House chamber because hearing rooms could hold the several hundred people who came to speak against it. The measure failed. The people then voted the Democrats out. (And UNH refused to release raw polling data, and I was never able to find anyone who particiapted in the survey whether pro- or anti-PPYI.)
-“I also believe that a certain amount of gun control is good. Restrictions, background checks and other types of actions will help America come to a peaceful agreement, and that is for the best interest of our country.”
ThenAlaina won’t mind similar licensing and PPYI checks for other rights. Get a reporter license, and go through a PPYI check before publishing columns like this. Background checks for voting (be sure to fill out a 4473-equivalent so the feds can track your race and how you voted). Do you have a license for a fair and speedy trial?
Alaina is proposing to violate constitutionally protected rights (which happens to be a crime; look up 18 U.S. Code § 241). Worked your way down the Bill of Rights and apply your people-controlling scheme to every other enumerated right and see how it would affect you. Do you like that?
Frankly, Ms. Wimbish seems rather under-educated on the topic of guns/RKBA/rights. TZP has a nice little rpimer for folks new to the subject: http://zelmanpartisans.com/?page_id=2710
Megan Henderson • Sep 26, 2017 at 11:29 am
Hi, everyone. I’m the editor of The Hawkeye’s Opinion section. We love having an open dialogue about issues that you care about such as this one, and one way to do that is to write a letter to the editor. If you disagree with something that we’ve published, then we want to hear about it! The Opinion section is all about giving individual students their own voice and being heard on issues that matter. If you feel that writing a letter to the editor or an opinion article is something you want to do, then email me at [email protected]. If it’s a strong argument that meets our editorial standards, we will publish it.
jack burton • Sep 26, 2017 at 10:30 am
Regarding “common sense” gun control laws: My dictionary defines “common sense” as “sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge.”
For any law to be “common sense” oriented, there must be a clear and well-defined end result, an expectation that it will/can be enforced, and some validation that the scheme has the desired effect. No proposal from the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, or Criminals for Societal Manipulation (a.k.a. Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns) meets the definition of “common sense.”
The expressed expectations and desired results all depend on the assumptions that criminals will obey the new laws even though they are criminals who freely disobey other inconvenient laws.
One may judge the honesty of an approach to solving the problem of gun violence by the degree to which the fact of human volition is ignored or evaded. In the case of the Democrats, the evasion is obvious. They do not consider evil or negligence to be the problem, but instead concentrate on inessential and irrelevant attributes of the weapons themselves, such as their appearance or the fact that they are considered “assault rifles.” Human volition, which means the responsibility of an individual for his own actions, is the one issue that they dare not discuss.
This is because the corollary of individual responsibility is individual rights, the very concept that they have set out to deny.
The writer really, really, believes in her heart that the midnight-behind-the-bar-in-an-alley-illegal-gun-seller-from-the-trunk-of-his-car will demand his social deviant, thuggish customers get a “background check” before he will do business with them if only the state can pass the “right law.”
This is the famous “common sense” that they use to determine the amount of freedom and liberty that we get to have.
Real common sense requires incarcerating miscreants, thugs, and social deviants, not unviable and unprovable wishes expressed as laws.
And BTW… that “92 percent” number of people supporting background checks? Totally bogus. In the past year’s election cycle several states completely voted down an opportunity to add that law to the books, and the single state that did pass it mangaged to ekk out a 50.2 percent win on the issue… and EVERY county but one (the most populated) voted the measure down. That was with Bloomberg outspending the pro-freedom community about 20 to one on commercials and other propaganda.
Frank Clarke • Sep 26, 2017 at 9:17 am
We constantly hear the nonsensical assertion that “background checks work”. They clearly don’t. If they did, the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando FL in June 2016 would not have happened. There the shooter had passed all his background checks. He was even a concealed weapons licensee and a licensed security guard. If they worked, the 2 million-plus denials over the past decade would have resulted in many, many more than 60-or-so prosecutions.
No, they don’t work, and any intellectually honest person must admit, having looked at the facts, that they are a Utopian fantasy.
They don’t work and they merely make acquiring a gun more difficult for any who follow the law — by definition, that excludes criminals. When heretofore-otherwise-law-abiding people see a law as nothing more than a deliberate poke in their eye they tend to ignore it (thus the ‘heretofore’), and when those you rely upon to follow the law no longer see the law as something worth following, you have a problem, and it’s a problem — potentially — without a solution you wish to entertain.
I strongly advise you not to go down that path.
David • Sep 26, 2017 at 8:53 am
What you believe and can prove are two entirely different things sweety
Background checks are nothing but an expensive Ponzi scheme
$330 mil a year spent to run background checks
27 mil background checks
139,000 avg rejections
NICS operations reports proving 93.8% of those rejected were false positives, meaning they weren’t bad guys
That leaves 8,060 avg bad guys rejected
Rejected = delayed, not stopped unless you can post proof humans always give up after just being delayed…no
US Bureau of Justice data shows only 45 of those 8,060 rejected are successfully prosecuted per year and locked up
Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968
Freed vs US 401, 1971
5th Amendment
Those rulings and law Make 85% of the 22,000+ gun control laws (those requiring identification be provided) not applicable as a punishment against actual criminals identified in USC 18 Sec 922
GAO study (US Congress) posted March 2001 where agents were sent to 5 different states and using fake identification software that is publicly available, bought guns 100% of the time, a result exactly repeated in a dozen other identical studies
USDOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001 and the 2015 University of Chicago study Sources of guns to dangerous people, show from over 19,326 bad guys interviewed, that over 80% of bad guys get their guns via straw buys or fake identification buys, the remainder through theft and such
Horrible how UBC and background checks simply can’t catch or stop any of those actual criminals eh
So spare us your sanctimonious pathetic lies that background checks are anything but an expensive government Ponzi scheme promising much and delivering jack schiite