Access to guns should be restricted
Access to guns should be restricted, but not abolished.
According to the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), a person currently doesn’t need to have a permit to buy a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
I think this is dangerous because people, as a general rule, are unpredictable and guns are obviously dangerous weapons.
It is currently illegal in Kansas to knowingly sell firearms to people who have been convicted of certain felonies, people who abuse controlled substances, and people who are habitually drunk.
Unfortunately, it can be hard to tell whether or not someone fits under any of those categories. Someone who is habitually drunk may not be inebriated at the time of purchase of a gun. Similarly, there’s not a way to tell if someone was a convicted felon.
Needing a permit to buy guns would allow the state to filter out people who could be irresponsible with guns, such as people who have substance abuse problems or people who have used guns irresponsibly in the past.
Although I think guns should be restricted, the restrictions should be loose. People still need to be able to defend themselves when absolutely necessary, and they should be able to do things they enjoy, such as going hunting.
Something as potentially dangerous as being in control of a gun should be a privilege, not an entitlement.
People who are responsible should be able to have all the access to guns they want, so long as they don’t do anything to nullify the privilege they have been given.
My only concern is making guns available to everyone, including people who are potentially dangerous and irresponsible.
Katie is a sophomore and this is her first year participating in newspaper. She is also involved in tennis, concert band, and jazz band. Some of the things...
Freddy Haines • Feb 4, 2016 at 1:03 pm
Laws and restrictions aren’t going to stop criminals or mentally ill poeple from getting guns, to buy a guy on nex tech classifieds, all you need is a license sometimes. Restricting sales is only slowing people down from buy long rifles and shotguns. Higher grade military weapons that can hold more than 30-40 rounds may be excessive. As of right now, to register for suppressors you must go through a background check and then must purchase a license. To obtain a fully automatic weapons you must go through multiple background checks which i think is a must. But little restrictions on AR-15’s, shotguns, pistols, and rifles should be the way to go. as soon as little restrictions are being set, very slight but very sure, we will get more and more restrictions. guns aren’t the problem, people are.
Jacob Hecker • Jan 25, 2016 at 11:13 am
Ok so following what you proposed we could use something like this to help violence with other things aswell.
Dog violence……..on average there are 4.5 million dogbites in the US ever year (taken form the CDC) we can easily cut that number down so lets just add more and more restrictions to buying dogs. This should also stop dog fights aswell….but if this plan ever took place you would still see a bunch of people owning dogs and dogs fighting each other for peoples entertainment.
Thats because people will find a way to get what they want.
Now you could say thats a little far fetched so apply it to something way more common.
Knives……No one can buy/sell knives, kitchen or hunting knives. We would actually see a slight decrease in knife related injuries but the key word is SLIGHT……..if someone wants to stab/shoot you they will find a way how.
Alex Feyerherm • Jan 25, 2016 at 5:16 pm
The narrative that “gun laws won’t keep crime from happening” sounds reasonable, except it’s not supported by data from places that actually have enacted gun restrictions.
In states that require a permit for firearm purchases, the overall homicide rate in the metros is 4.32 per 100,000 residents (according to the latest available FBI crime report). In states that do not require a purchase permit, that rate climbs to 5.76 per 100,000 residents. There’s a similar trend in overall burglary rates. The metros in permit states have an overall burglary rate of 442 per 100,000 residents, meanwhile that rate is 690 per 100,000 residents in non-permit states.
Additionally, “right to carry” laws that allow weapons to be carried in some public locations have actually been linked to an increase, not a decrease, in crime by a Stanford University study. Aggravated assault was at the top of the list, increasing a whopping 8% with RTC laws in place – and that number is actually thought to be understated, according to those who conducted the study. You can read the exhaustive 108-page report here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681
All in all, measures like purchase permits and background checks (the kind of loose restrictions called for in the original article) are hardly strict ‘gun control’ measures. They definitely fall short of the fear-mongering narrative peddled by gun lobbyists, that “the government wants to come in and take your guns.” No, these are reasonable measures that have proven to be decently effective in reducing crime, while maintaining our right to own guns. Win-win.
Marcus Altman • Jan 25, 2016 at 6:18 pm
yeah. So since restrictions won’t completely stop every single person from killing somebody/themselves with a gun, we should just not do anything. I don’t care if the restrictions only take the number of deaths down by 1,000 people. (Pretty SLIGHT compared to the 32,000 a year in the US) in my mind it’s still a success.
Alex Feyerherm • Jan 24, 2016 at 10:56 pm
No right we have in America is absolute. We have freedom of speech, yet we can still be prosecuted for crimes such as libel and slander. This is a common-sense, widely accepted restriction on our speech. But when it comes to the 2nd amendment, there’s suddenly a faction of people who believe that our right to own firearms should be absolute. That any attempt to curb gun violence is an attack on our freedoms by the US government. And I think that is nonsense.
Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill seems like it would be a common-sense restriction on the 2nd amendment – yet there are many states that are not fully cooperating to make this happen. A study in 2011 showed that only 5 states forward 100% of their mental records to the NICS database, which is used to run background checks. 4 states don’t submit any data at all. The VA Tech shooting in 2007, the deadliest school shooting in US history, was caused by a student who was ruled mentally ill two years before the attack. That information never got forwarded by the state, so the student was able to pass a background check and purchase the gun he used in the shooting. Since then, some legislation has gotten passed to incentivize the forwarding of mental health data, but participation is still not where it should be.
That leads into another issue, one of money in politics. For the most part, background checks have bipartisan support among American citizens. Yet, it took an executive order from the president to put some of these measure into place. Passing any sort of gun legislation in congress is extremely difficult. Why is that? Because political power groups like the NRA have bought out our politicians. Many of our congressmen are no longer listening to the desires of the people, but to the big donors who will help them get re-elected. It’s a broken system.
Marcus Altman • Jan 22, 2016 at 5:53 pm
I’ve about had it with the 2nd amendment argument. Half you also have no idea what the 2nd amendment actually entails, and things have changed a bit since the constitution was written. They didn’t have AR15’s and other Assualt Rifles. They had muskets.
Landon Crispin • Jan 25, 2016 at 4:56 pm
Are you yourself aware of what the 2nd amendment entails?
Adam O'Connor • Jan 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm
I think background checks are a good thing, and I believe that if you buy guns with such things as a suppressor and fully automatic weapons, or Magazines that hold more than 30 rounds, an even more detailed background check should be conducted. There also should be classes required to have such a weapon or attachment in your magazine. Though as it has been pointed out more restrictions on firearms take guns away from responsible, law-abiding citizens, and guns into the hands of criminals.
nathan rohr • Jan 22, 2016 at 12:33 pm
the article says
I think this is dangerous because people, as a general rule, are unpredictable and guns are obviously dangerous weapons.
I agree that people are unpredictable, but guns are not a dangerous weapons. the people using the guns are dangerous.
Charlie Mathias • Jan 22, 2016 at 11:33 am
I find it silly that people want to restrict guns, honestly, if you are put under a situation where someone has a gun, having one yourself would be nice wouldn’t it. Also, if you think taking away our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to buy and own a gun, and think that that solves the problem, you are dead wrong, its called black market trade. Criminals don’t follow the law, and they will do anything they can to get there hands on a firearm. The best way to end gun violence, is not to restrict a right, it is to defend our life.
Andrew Nottingham • Jan 22, 2016 at 11:32 am
Before I say anything, I mean no disrespect to the author of this article, I only mean to speak my mind.
Firearms are not “dangerous weapons”. Firearms are tools, and however they are used is up to the user. It doesn’t matter if somebody can’t get a gun, if they plan on doing something dangerous they will find other means of doing it. Owning and operating a gun is an entitlement, not a privilege. As stated in the constitution, all Americans have the right to bear arms. I do support background checks however. The only reason people should be concerned that the government is “taking their guns” is because they have done something in the past to give the Government a reason to confiscate their firearms.
Landon Crispin • Jan 22, 2016 at 10:26 am
What kind of restrictions? Loose restrictions might mean a lot to you, but it may not mean much to a reader. Obama used executive action just recently to require background checks on people that want to buy a gun. I do not think that by increasing restrictions shootings will decrease. Think about it. If someone wants to go out and kill another person/people, they are not going to go to the store to buy a gun. Most may get the gun illegally. All this does is increase how hard it is for a normal gun owner to buy a weapon. It’s not the weapon that causes the problem, it’s the people. If the person has a mindset to kill, they are going to do whatever they can in their power to kill who they want.
Tanner Haselhorst • Jan 22, 2016 at 7:39 am
Read the Constitution, Then tell me how less guns will make us safe. Make America Great Again!
Marcus Altman • Jan 21, 2016 at 2:40 pm
Good article. People are so paranoid about “OBAMA takin their precious guns away” that they are opposed to any sort of regulation whatsoever.