Category: Gun Control

The gun control theme has been a huge problem that is been discussed for a very long time. The problem has polarized people in terms of what is the best solution in the aftermath of the latest tragic mass shootings. There are some people who want the government to keep the limitations on weapons. On the other side, there are people who do not support the regulation and how firearms could be controlled. All law-abiding citizens should be permitted to carry weapons; this is to protect themselves against people who may wish to harm them, such as in instances of mass shooting. Due to the numerous school shootings and the availability of high-powered rifles, the executive branch should make our communities safer from gun violence.

There are over 250 types of guns in the US today and each citizen has at least one and continues to grow for about 7 million of them each year. Experts believe that the second amendment is rational and legal to the citizens, the author of the handgun prohibition and the person that brought out the second amendment Don B. Kates states that the “second amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia and can be used for traditionally lawful purposes, an example is self-defense within one’s home, however, she never said anybody can go around and start shooting people wrongfully and then claiming you are right. Every year gun violence increases, which really concerns the citizens and the nation. Anybody can purchase a firearm in the US without a background check, except in some states.

There are some solutions in which gun violence can be controlled, firstly reduce firearms access to youths and individuals who are at risk of harming themselves or others, this is basically talking about people who have been violent to their partners and families around them. Secondly, insist on mandatory training for licensing for owners. This training should include recurring education to renew permits, with a graduated licensing process at least as stringent as for driver’s licenses. When it comes to people owning a gun privately, there are guns that are suitable for protection. Guns such as the AK 47 or the AR15 that holds about 30 or more magazine capacity are not suitable in public and are the quick and efficient massacre of the people around. There are no reasons why anyone should have that much. Some of the biggest mass shooting histories have to do with semi-automatic rifles; examples are the deadly shootings at a concert in Las Vegas schools in Connecticut, South Florida, and was also used at a nightclub in Orlando. The AR-15s — often called assault rifles or sporting rifles — are semi-automatic weapons, a civilian version of the military’s fully automated M16.

When it comes to the president changing gun laws, he cannot really do much. However, as the executive branch, the president has the power to direct his agencies, enforce gun laws and make them influence internal practices. If the president wants to take unilateral action on rifle guns, he or she can mostly act through the Department of Justice and its agencies, said attorney Lindsay Nichols of Gifford’s, the gun violence prevention organization. The democratic presidential candidates who have endorsed executive actions on rifle guns have proposals and ambitions. They have each promised to put on a mission called “engaged in the business”. This would make thousands of sellers get a license and conduct checks or they stop selling rifle guns. According to trace 2019, all four said they would reverse the Trump administration’s decision to use a much more limited definition of “fugitives from justice” for the purposes of the federal background check system.

A high-capacity magazine at can hold as many as 20 to100 bullets are capable of causing mass destruction. But with the magazines being reduced to a small amount, would cause less damage, this includes the fire rate and magazine capacity. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice found that following the implementation of the ban, a number of cities and jurisdictions reported declines in the number of assault weapons recovered from crime scenes. These declines ranged from 17 percent to 72 percent. With the disconnector removal or selector, fire will be manipulated with comparative ease automatically.

This also implies that within two to five minutes shooting can take place. This requires a ban on assault rifles. If the rifles are not controlled, there may be more threats in the public.

Gun control is a vital necessity to our nation today. On one side of the debate, there are individuals who favor the idea of having restrictions placed on guns, and on the other hand, there are individuals who are opposed to putting gun laws in place. The individuals who are against gun control believe that controlling guns will not solve the existing challenges that guns have caused such as crimes or mass shootings. People who are pro-gun regulation know of the threat they pose to society. According to the data from Gun Violence Archive (GVA), as of September 1, which was the 244th day of the year, there have been 283 mass shootings in the U.S (GunViolenceArchive.org). The last time that the number of mass shootings totaled more days than there are in a year was back in 2016, which had 382 mass shootings (Silverstein 2019). The devastations that these tragic events have caused to our society is why we need laws to be set in place to prevent these things from happening.

I feel that there should be multiple protocols and procedures that Americans should have to go through to obtain gun licenses. The lack of gun control shows results in the possession of guns by the wrong individuals. I believe that it is a good idea for mental and background screenings to be taken as one of the strategies to limit gun violence in the nation and targets to ensure that firearms are in the hands of psychologically fit people. According to Dr. Jonathan M. Metzl and Dr. Kenneth T. MacLeish, both authors of Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms, 5% of the total gun killings experienced in the United States have been perpetrated by mentally ill individuals (Metzi and MacLeish 2015). Though the statistics of the individuals responsible were not as high, it is obvious that psychological traits that individuals possess are a contribution to gun violence in the nation.

Tuesday, April 20th, 1999, the fourth-deadliest school massacre in history took place at Columbine High School located in Columbine (Sakas 2018). The two students responsible for this incident were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They were responsible for killing twelve students and one teacher, and also injuring another twenty-one students in the massacre. The two young men used two nine-millimeter handguns and two twelve-gauge shotguns by sawing off the barrels and the butts of the guns to make them easier to carry and conceal while walking into the school (CSGV.org). The boys bought the firearms from a local gun show by convincing someone of age to buy them and they purchased the handguns through a person that they had met at work (CSGV.org). A simple gun show was the beginning of a tragic massacre that devastated the nation.

After the shooting happened, it seemed like everyone wanted to talk about everything, but gun control was stated in German Lopez’s article on the Columbine Shooting 20 years later (Lopez 2019). Politicians blamed video games like Doom. They blamed Marilyn Manson. They pointed to bullying but no one called out the real problem which is still true to this day… guns. Whether it’s Columbine or any other school shooting that has taken place, the bottom line issue is that the people who have twisted motives were able to obtain extremely deadly weapons that took the lives of everyone.

As I have done my research on being pro-gun laws I realized I notice that America’s loose access to guns is a major reason the US is so much worse in terms of gun violence than any other country. According to Lopez’s article again, in the US, even a background check isn’t a total requirement needed to purchase a gun; the current federal law is poorly enforced and has many ways to go around needing one. But even if a state has stricter rules than federal gun laws, someone can easily cross state lines to buy a gun where it is simpler to do so. Another factor s that the US has a surplus amount of guns. It has far more than any other country period. Estimated for 2017, the number of civilian-owned firearms in the US was 120.5 guns per 100 residents, meaning there were more firearms than people (Lopez 2019). The statistics on this topic are wildly astounding and it is why we, as a country, need to continue to fight for gun laws so that we can prevent these senseless mass shootings.

The point of my paper was to address the early years of mass school shootings and why gun restrictions need to be put in place. As times have changed over the years, gun control has become increasingly urgent to prevent unnecessary crime and killings. But the terrible reality is that strongly motivated and premeditated violence, especially done by killers willing to die, are among the hardest violent acts to prevent, no matter what measures one might take to do so. Gun control may not prevent tragedies like the one in Columbine, but they will lessen the chances of a lot of other, smaller tragedies that receive less publicity but still cause devastating pain.

With the increase in technology today, violence has been able to manifest itself in every part of the country worldwide. Today, every country, society, and town is faced with some form of violence. In my entire life, I have to admit that there have been numerous injuries as well as death caused by gun violence. Today, the most controversial issue in America is gun control. This issue concerning gun control has been debated by politicians and lawmakers for quite a long time, most probably ever since the use of guns was invented in America.

The gun is a small thing, yet a hazardous factor that destroys our lives. Studies conducted on the use of guns by Americans have shown that more than 30,000 individuals in America have died because of firearms (Barry et al, 2018). The increase in the number of people dying from the use of firearms, it has led to division in our country. Some people hold to the belief that people should continue to possess guns while other people are strongly against the use of people owning guns since it affects the peacefulness of the country.

With the increase in the number of the United States population, the number in which citizens own guns increases as well. Research conducted on the numbers of individuals possessing guns in the United States has indicated that the country has about one hundred and twenty guns per one hundred individuals (Barry et al, 2018). Out of this population of individuals owning guns, thirty-five percent of them include men while women sum up to twelve percent (Barry et al, 2018). In my opinion, I do believe that it is the pervasive gun culture of our country that comes from our colonial history that has prompted people to own one or more guns.

Remarkably, guns were common in the American colonial period. The guns were mainly used for hunting as well as offer protection (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). In other words, guns were used to offer self-protection to individuals and their family members. The guns were later used as weapons by the military in the American Revolutionary War (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). During these colonial periods, both men and women were allowed to own or possess their own guns. Similarly, the second amendment, which was ratified in the year 1791 on the fifth December, emphasized the importance of people possessing guns (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). Therefore, I do believe that the colonies owning their own guns during the colonial period and the formation of the second amendment, it has greatly fueled the continuous debate we have today about gun rights.

Today, the National Rifle Association in the United States has proved to be the strongest opponent in Washington that advocates for people to own guns. In other words, the National Rifle Association tends to have a powerful voice for gun owners’ rights across the entire country (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). They ensure that they battle all attempts to pass gun control legislation at all levels of the country (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). Aside from the National Rifle Association, other groups that support the legislation of gun control include the National Shooting Sports Foundation as well as the National Association for Gun Rights (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). All these groups have today played a significant role in fighting for the rights of American citizens to own guns. They mostly base their arguments on the second amendment constitution found in the American bill of rights.

The debate regarding gun control has been mainly controlled by the Republicans. Their main agenda was to favor the use of guns by individuals with regard to the use of money. In the year 2016, all towns in the country spent about one million dollars in lobbying for guns control (Brody, 2018). The National Rifle Association spent more as compared to other groups to encourage their member participation in owning guns. In the year 2017, the government spent about 11.4 million dollars to restrict people’s ability to purchase as well as use firearms (Brody, 2018). During the reign of President Obama, two pro-gun legislation were signed and implemented into the law. People were allowed to carry guns in national parks (Brody, 2018). Additionally, the second piece of the pro-gun legislation signed by President Obama, allowed passengers to carry arms in tartan baggage. In other words, the second piece of pro-gun legislation was invalidating a legislation ban passed after September eleventh (Brody, 2018). In the year 2017, President Donald Trump signed legislation to avert the Social Security Administration from giving out information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (Brody, 2018). With his administration to power, it has chipped away firearm regulations. It has also made it easier for a few individuals to buy firearms if they tend to have an exceptional warrant arrest

It is evidently clear that with the tremendous increase in technology in America, there is an increase in the number of individuals possessing firearms. Most citizens in America do agree with the second amendment that people should have their own guns for their protection. However, with the increase in the number of death and injuries caused to people due to the use of firearms, people have begun to debate whether it’s beneficial for individuals to pose guns. Based on research conducted on the United States population, it was indicated that more than thirty-eight thousand individuals die due to gunshots wounds in the year 2016 (Barry et al, 2018). In addition to that, one of the most horrific tragedies that caught the attention of most people in America is the killing of twenty elementary school children by Adam Lanza in the year 2012 (Barry et al, 2018). In the year 2017, fifty-eight individuals were killed in Las Vegas (Barry et al, 2018). Therefore, with the increase in the number of individuals dying due to the use of firearms, it is clear that gun violence is undeniable and the best solution to curb these incidences is by mainly controlling the use of guns.

With the increase of people owning guns in America and the increase in gun violence, I do believe that there must be a restriction on people’s gun usage as well as posses, so as to prevent or avoid further tragedies. In other words, gun control helps to provide self-defense among people (Barry et al, 2018). The government has to ensure that it limits the people’s possession of firearms. They should implement laws that will restrict more people from purchasing firearms. A person in possession of a gun should be of sound mind. Studies from America’s defense force has indicated that over seventy-five percent of the mass shooting killing that happened in the past thirty years were as a result of legally authorized guns (Barry et al, 2018). By the government taking control of people possessing dangerous weapons, they will be in a position to offer safety to all individuals in the country.

Another reason for restricting or banning the possession of guns by individuals is that it helps to decrease suicide rates. Studies done on ways of improving and maintaining the safety of people in a country have shown that in 90% of the countries where the use of guns has been restricted, there is a decrease in criminal cases such as suicide and massive killing (Brody, 2018). This is because, most individuals in countries where guns have been banned, lack the means of destructive behavior by using guns, which proves to be the most effective way of committing suicide. The government of the United States of America has, therefore, proved to be effective in protecting their citizens’ rights to live to ban the possession of guns to mentally disturbed people. In my opinion, I do believe that the country has significantly reduced suicide rates, which posed to be a threat in the previous year (Brody, 2018). People tend to use other means such as poison to kill themselves but they are not as effective as using a gun.

Moreover, gun control helps to reduce accidents that are mainly caused by guns. Gun control has proved to be effective in reducing some accidents that are brought about by improper handling of guns by people. People with gun possession, basically feel that they are in control. According to Haines (2018), gun possession normally comes with power. This makes people feel that what they say and what they believe is true. Gun control laws are basically required so as to protect women from some domestic violence from their abusive husbands. Every day in the United States, women are killed by their husbands by using guns (Brody, 2018). If a gun is presented every time a domestic disagreement then women’s risks of being murdered will increase by 90% (Brody, 2018). The government should, therefore, ensure they control the use of guns of individuals.

I do believe that with the increase in population growth and more individuals being educated, more crime rates have increased in the United States. As a result of this, it becomes difficult for policemen to provide or offer protection to everyone in the country. Hence, people with licensed guns can use weapons to protect themselves from any form of violence from intruders. With regard to the NRA, guns are utilized every year by more than two million people in self-defense (Brody, 2018). This is because; the police force cannot at all times protect people from burglaries. At the same instance including the time they might arrive at a crime scene, sometimes a bit too late and result in further injuries and possibly even tragic incidents.

Likewise, gun control implementations are not necessarily needed to prevent gun deaths. In my opinion, I do believe that education on guns is the best method to prevent accidental death caused by guns. Studies on America’s population have indicated that ninety-five percent of individuals with guns do believe that all children should be educated on gun safety (Brody, 2018). It is evidently true that guns do not murder individuals but people kill individuals. Therefore, more individuals tend to need more mental screening as well as education to help prevent mass murder (Brody, 2018). The government should strive to ensure that all people are educated about the usage of guns. Furthermore, stern gun control by the government can make individuals be more dependent on the government states, hence making them become helpless. In other words, they become unable to take care of themselves.

Today, the use of guns has resulted in gun violence, which is a complex problem. Gun violence needs some based-equipped solutions to solve the problem. Based on my observations from politics today, it is evidently clear that the increased massive shooting rate has impelled the most powerful debate regarding gun laws (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). Similarly, the killing of the twenty children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the year 2012 by Adam Lanza has tremendously increased the debate concerning gun laws (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). Politicians in Washington are discussing the new legislation as well as the actions against the killing of seventeen individuals at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). President Donald Trump and also lawmakers have come with policies regarding the utilization of guns by individuals in the country.

The government has therefore increased the age in order to purchase a gun. President Donald Trump has called for raising the age of buying guns by individuals (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). According to President Trump, the minimum age for one to purchase a gun or be in a position of handling a gun is by the age of twenty-one (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). In my opinion, I strongly agree with the president’s claim. This is because, by the age of twenty-one, one is in a position to be responsible for their actions and they are proven to be of sound mind. The president goes further to claim that teachers should be encouraged with some proper training to carry a gun. I do believe that with the teachers being in a position to use guns properly, they will be in a position to prevent some massive massacres that happen in school settings.

In recent years, gun control has become one of the hottest topics in our politics today. To some individuals, there seems to be no need for more gun control. On the other hand, others still believe that the government should improve and continue implementing more laws with regard to the utilization of guns by people. Despite many people believing that gun control will limit as well as violate their human rights on owning guns, I strongly believe that the government implemented policies on gun control can help many societies. Gun control will help people to live harmoniously with other people, hence making them feel safe.

On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into Columbine High School in Columbine, Colorado, however this day was different than all the rest. What happened that day would come to be known as The Columbine High School Massacre. Harris and Klebold killed 12 of their fellow students and a teacher before commiting suicide in the school library (“Columbine High School Shooting Fast Facts”). Cassie Bernall, 17, Steven Curnow, 14, Corey Depooter, 17, Kelly Fleming, 16, Matthew Ketcher, 16, Daniel Mauser, 15, Daniel Rohrbough, 15, William “Dave” Sanders, 47, Rachel Scott, 17, Isaiah Shoels, 18, John Tomlin, 16, Lauren Townsend, 18, and Kyle Velasquez, 16, will never swim in a lake, will never watch the sunset, will never even simply walk down the street again (“Columbine High School Shooting Fast Facts”). A world of possibilities was stolen from them and the world we live in will never be the same. Since April 20, 1999, everyone has asked the same question: How could this happen?

People tried to come up with reasons behind why they did what they did. People came up with many theories. Everyone grasped for answers. Many blamed music, media, video games, and more. People blamed easy access to guns, racism, neo-nazism, a wall between church and state that had grown too strong, or the boys were simply “bad seeds”(Gerdes). The real answers are within Harris and Klebold’s psychology. “…Dave Cullen, author of the 2009 book Columbine, described Harris as the “callously brutal mastermind” while Klebold was a “quivering depressive”…”(“Columbine Shooting”). Harris and Klebold latched onto each other. Their friendship turned toxic and eventually fatal. There were, of course, signs as to what they were planning. About a year earlier Harris and Klebold had broken into a van and stolen electronics. They were placed in a diversion program but graduated early (Gerdes). There were little signs but in reality no one saw what was coming. This was a mistake no one wanted to make again.

America was changed forever after April 20, 1999. America never truly healed. Today’s students live in constant fear, not of tests but of AK-47s. There has been a school shooting almost every month for the past 20 years (Cullen). However, not much was learned. Eleven days after the shooting the NRA held a meeting a short distance from the school (Gerdes). People continue to push this problem away, as if it is not happening. On April 20, 1999 thirteen innocent people lost their lives while going through a normal day at school. That should have been enough to spark change but instead countless others have lost their lives in tragedies such as Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Parkland. Still, it is as if we have learned nothing. Someone needs to shine a light on the truth. In 2016 Sue Klebold published a book titled A Mother’s Reckoning. We should learn from people’s lives and first hand experiences that way no more lives are lost. “When we can do a better job of helping people before their lives are in crisis, the world will become safer for all of us”(Klebold).

My generation was born after Columbine. “We have all grown up conditioned to be afraid. And we are sick and tired of being afraid”(Hogg). We have had active shooter drills since kindergarten. We have never lived in a world where school is safe. One would assume something as devastating as Columbine would have sparked change. However, it seems to have done the opposite. Since April 20, 1999 over 200 people have died in school shootings (Hogg). Columbine set off a domino effect that we are still experiencing nearly 20 years after the shooting. Today’s students are still living in the aftermath. In 2012 Adam Lanza showed up at Sandy Hook Elementary School and killed 26 people. Found with Adam Lanza’s belongings was Columbine memorabilia (Klebold). In 2012, I was seven years old. I was in the second grade. The 20 children that died should be starting high school next year, just like me. It could have been me. It could have been my friends. Too many people have lost their lives for us to sit back and do nothing.

We need to learn from Columbine. The biggest lesson to be learned from Columbine is “If you see something, say something”. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did not hide everything they were planning. If someone says/posts/does something concerning report it. Even if it’s just a joke we are far past this being a joking matter. Children are losing their lives. However, we cannot live in fear. “Their vision was to create a nightmare so devastating and apocalyptic that the entire world would shudder in their power”(“The Depressive and The Psychopath”). We cannot let them win. We need to be strong. A simple joke about a school shooting could be them letting someone see inside. You can never be too careful. We need to come together and stand up for the youth of our nation. We are Marjory Stoneman Douglas strong. We are Virginia Tech strong. We are Sandy Hook strong. We are Columbine strong.

While considering the pro-gun side, one must take note that even though crime will always exist no matter where we go or what kind of laws a place may have, the least our country can do is try to show effort and concern by taking action in this problematic occurrence going on in the United States. Countries with restrictive gun control laws obtain lower homicide and suicide rates. We can use Finland as an example, which has the most gun ownership but they have extremely strict laws in order to get one, whereas in the United States we have an easy route in order to hold possession of a weapon. With stricter gun laws, provides a safer environment and regulates the distribution of guns and who holds possession of them. Even though there is always a chance that the gun may be placed in the wrong hand, with gun laws the chances will decrease and not everyone will be able to obtain a hand weapon. Adding on, it is important to take into counter the extreme fear that has come across Americans with the amount of gun violence occurring from state to state. Many people have developed anxiety whenever they go somewhere with a large number of crowds, or even simply just being in a classroom or dining in somewhere. The number of shootings we see taking place all throughout the country from news outlets and on social media begins to evoke emotional distress. It is hard not to think about the nearest exit around, or exactly where one should hide if someone walks in with a gun; these things should be the last thing on one’s mind, especially in a school setting. According to Liam Stack, “ More than 5,000 readers wrote to tell us about the anxiety they felt while riding the subway, going to the movies, dropping their children off at school and attending religious services”. In addition, according to a newspaper article by Susan Paige and Marilyn Iceman, “Now nearly one in five, 19%, say they don’t feel safe at their school. One in four, 25%, say it’s very or somewhat likely that a classmate will bring a gun to school. Nearly one in seven, 15%, say it’s likely there will be shooting at their school”. In the article, the writers also incorporated quotes from students that express their feelings when they attend school. One of the students they have interviewed explained that “ ‘I watch over my shoulder because you never know,’ ” says Justin McDonnall, 17, a sophomore at North Central High School in Hymera, Ind”. It is truly unfortunate that the tolerant gun system that the United States has, has caused so many traumatic experiences that people feel unsafe just living their daily lives. One should not feel like they are not able to proceed in life with feeling unprotected and having anxiety when they go places; this takes emphasis on students attending school. As for parents, they should be able to drop their kids off at school, knowing they are in a safe place and not have to worry about whether their child is going to make it home or not. In order to come to terms with all that has occurred, both sides of the argument should come together and find the medium- gun control.

The lack of gun control that has caused serious and fatal effects to the United States, it has been due to the underlying issue of gun regulation. Just about anyone can purchase a gun despite the legal age laws. Just because the law requires one to be at least “at least 18 years of age to purchase shotguns or rifles and ammunition” does not mean that it is still safe for them to be purchasing a weapon. Adding on, today in America, buying a gun is way too easy for the damage that it can cause. Background checks here in America are too lenient to surpass and ultimately make the process of passing them extremely doable, even with those who have a criminal record. In selling guns, it is important to take into consideration who you are selling the guns to because “it isn’t only the guns, it’s the people who use them to commit the murders” according to Connors and Kelly as they write an article on gun reform. With the resistance of gun reform that America continues to dismiss “There is widespread support among Americans — Democrats, Republicans and gun owners alike — for a number of initiatives to curb gun violence they would like to see Congress pass” which is why gun control can be portrayed as one of the solutions to pleasing those who want some form of change to occur.

Adding on to the fight for gun control, many tourists normally do not feel that it is safe to travel to the U.S. in fear of a massive shooting taking place because of our gun laws. With news outlets portraying all the criminal violence going on that stems from gun accessibility, many people second guess about visiting the United States. Sadly, because we have so many massive shootings that happen per year, it becomes associated with the United States; this makes people scared to come and visit the U.S. because of the gun violence that we are known for. In an article, Nomadic Matt addresses the issue about the refinement people have in visiting the United States due to the excessive amount of violence arousing from the U.S. In the article, the writer proclaims that we have “The US has the highest rate of death by guns in the developed world (outside of war zones, of course), we have nearly the highest incarceration rate in the world, hate crimes have gone up since the election, and we average roughly one mass shooting five out of every six days (and 90% of the mass shootings in the world happen here)…And when these incidents and attitudes are projected around the world in conjunction with our recent political strife, it creates the perception of the United States as a dangerous and unwelcoming place”. Through this article, it is evident to say that because of the excessive amount of gun violence happening around the country, many people have adapted a nervous and frightful feeling in coming to the United States. Movements such as the “March for our Lives” protest, it has sparked great publicity in the violence occurring in America because of violent gun usage. The outrage of gun violence, it has created an unfortunate image for America. People should be able to come and visit our country without feeling unsafe and on edge due to the lack of regulation we have for guns.

For those who are opposed to the idea of Gun control, they must understand that it is not taking away all of their guns or diminishing the second amendment, but it is rather the efficient way of balancing out the possession of guns and how one must obtain them. Politico Magazine addresses that “High-mindedly, Americans see themselves as locked into a perpetual stalemate over the meaning and limits of the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to bear arms”. Gun control can be seen as an effective way of understanding both sides of the aisle; giving those on one side the security they need, but also still letting those on the other side keep their freedom to bear arms. In doing so, those on the pro-gun side would just have to go through certain procedures in order to obtain their weapon, by the ability to have a gun would not be entirely diminished.

Aristotle, believed that to pursue happiness meant that if one is morally good then they are “striking a balance between two vices. You could have a vice of excess or one of the deficiencies”. Gun control can play an essential role between the two vices of lienantley having guns and taking away all possession of guns. With support from both vices, in order to obtain a moderate country and please each side gun control can be the ultimate solution to that by making sure that all steps are taken up properly to responsibly earn the ownership of a gun. Steps must include the proper age it takes to own a gun, and enhance careful observation by conducting in-depth background checks in order to ensure stable gun ownership.

Conclusion

As the recurring violence of guns causes deaths and massive shootings, it is our job as a country to help find a solution to the problem. With both sides of the argument being excessive, it is important to find the “Golden Mean” between the two as Aristotle would refer to it. In order to please both sides, but also find a cure to the problem, we must meet in the middle as a country and find the equilibrium between the two vices- gun control.

Although gun control seems positive and morally attractive at first glance, I assure you that when you look at the facts and solid evidence, you’ll see why it is logical not to implement US arms control laws. There are many reliable studies and real-world examples that show why arms control is not a much better alternative to strict weapon control. Strict rules on arms control take more people than they save, which is why it is so important. If you go beyond popular beliefs and prejudices and take the time to thoroughly examine gun control and find facts and evidence, you’ll see why gun control is not a good solution.

According to the New York Times, around 23% of people living in cities in the United States own a gun and about 56% of those living in rural areas. The actual number is estimated to be much higher because many states do not require the possession of a specific type of weapon. Which means there are many unregistered weapons. In fact, around 270 to 300 million cannons are in circulation in the United States. It’s almost a weapon for every American citizen. From this, we can conclude that arms control affects many people.

One of the main mistakes of gun control is the fact that criminals always find a way to get weapons. ‘The results of the murder suggest that when weapons are scarce, other weapons are replaced by killing,’ quotes a Harvard study. If a person is motivated enough, he will find a way, and we have already found that there are about 300 million weapons in the United States, so finding a way is not too difficult.

Removing weapons would only disarm law-abiding citizens and expose them to criminal attacks. ‘Weapons control laws ensure that thieves and bad people who want to defeat them are defenseless,’ said Earl Bumpkin, author of the pentagram. People may argue that we have police who protect us. The problem is that the police can’t be everywhere at the same time. In fact, they may be quite far from the crime scene. The average police response time is about ten minutes, but it is known to take more than 20 minutes in some areas. A lot can happen between 10 and 20 minutes. People can die, businesses can be robbed, cars can be stolen, and many other events can take place. Therefore, citizens should be armed.

FBI reports show that the number of violent crimes has fallen since 2007. Despite the ongoing debate on arms control. Interestingly, gun ownership increased at the same time. The growing number of weapons can actually lead to a lower crime rate. For example, if you look at a place like Russia, a country that has very strict weapons regulations for its citizens. Despite the laws on weapons, they have a very high crime rate, perhaps even because of them. The more citizens have guns, the less likely they are to commit a crime. An armed population is much more dangerous to criminals than unarmed.

Another reason for the lack of control over weapons is the second change. ‘You cannot violate a well-regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free state and the right of citizens to hold and carry weapons.’ Let’s sum it up. When the founding fathers spoke of ‘well-regulated militia,’ they meant that US citizens should be armed and ‘necessary for the security of a free state.’ They should be armed to protect themselves against criminals and potential government tyrants. ‘The founders warned [people that the government does not limit the possession of weapons] … they knew that governments could turn against their people,’ said Glenn Beck. As a nation that has just separated from a government that has opposed its people, it makes sense to incorporate this amendment into the constitution and it is prudent to keep it now. It may seem absurd to think that the US government may be corrupt, but many governments in the past, so it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Some argue that weapons regulations such as ‘Stand Your Ground’ encourage people to shoot first and ask questions that lead to unnecessary murders. However, the lack of regulations such as ‘Stand your Ground’ would cause far more deaths. When people fall into life or death, they shouldn’t worry about breaking the law. ‘Citizens must be able to protect themselves without fear that self-defense is a legal issue.’ says Rich Morthland, a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. It would hesitate in a situation where nobody would allow it and do bad things. Even the police are learning not to hesitate in such situations.

It is also argued that loose weapon legislation makes it easier for criminals to obtain weapons. Although it’s true, this can’t be avoided. An alternative to ‘loose weapon control’ is strict weapon control, which means that only criminals have weapons (it is not known if the criminals follow the rules)

Having only criminals who have guns is a much worse alternative than criminals and citizens who have guns.

The feeling of having that extra bit of safety attached at the hip gives that little bit of extra confidence when out and about. The right to bear arms in the USA is guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution (MacDonald v. City of Chicago). This is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen. Right-to-carry laws in the United States allow a person to carry legal weapons hidden even in most public places. Different states have different policies, somewhere the government is obliged to issue permission to any adequate applicant, and somewhere it may require additional checks (Rosen 20). Evaluating the theme of gun control reveals the right to store and carry legal weapons leads to a reduction in the number of willful and unintentional murders, attacks, and robberies, however, some restrictive measures are supported.

In the United States, legal weapons are practically not involved in street crimes and domestic conflicts, especially in terrorist attacks (Rosen 17). The arguments of proponents, like Rosen, of tighter gun control are diverse. It is worthy to note when people talk about the constitutional right of Americans to carry weapons freely, they lose sight of the fact that the law on the sale of firearms and their ammunition varies greatly from state to state (Rosen 20). There is, however, one general law: only people over 21 years of age, without conflict with the law and without psychological deviations can obtain the right to carry a gun. One can buy weapons only after verifying the identity of the buyer (Rosen 16).

Otherwise, one may suppose that permitting the free purchase of firearms does not always have a negative impact on public safety. A weapon does not kill; the person who possesses it kills. In turn, opponents of restrictions on the right to weapons indicate that such restrictions have little effect on the general statistics of deaths and violent crimes. The offender will always get some kind of weapon — not a gun, so a knife; anyone who wants to take one’s own life will easily find some other way. There is, however, a “convincing link between gun availability and gun suicide” (Rosen 17). A gun in the home increases the cases a person will commit suicide. Nevertheless, scientists need more data to state it because there is a factor of mental illnesses concerning suicide (Rosen). Many killings are not done with a firearm at all (Rosen 19), but with a kitchen knife or other improvised items.

There is always the likelihood that one will become a victim of an attack. Thus, one must have the right to protect oneself. It is impossible to imagine that a sane person will give up such a right. If one imagines some of the toughest rules for buying weapons in the country and it would be almost impossible for an ordinary citizen to buy a short barrel there, at the same time, the criminals have any weapon: from revolvers to light machine guns (Rosen 17). Therefore, it may happen that ordinary people cannot protect themselves from deliberately armed intruders. The right to carry a gun is an ongoing argument in preventing massacres.

Moreover, it is easier for police to solve crimes dealing with legal firearms. In such a way, people who used a gun for unknown reasons can be quickly debunked. Though, “Police officers who find a gun at a crime scene can’t always look up the owner’s name on a computer. That’s because there is no national registry — no searchable database of guns and their owners” (Rosen 17). Thus, purchase verification mechanisms are imperfect and need to be reviewed.

To conclude, many analysts and professors in the United States agree that possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens impedes many crimes. Expectedly, criminals fear armed resistance and the armed victim has more chances to defend themselves. It is important to understand that society is threatened not by the owners of legal weapons but by psychopaths, extremists, robbers, and killers. The evidence Rosen presents shows that a ban or serious restriction on the arms trade will not reduce the number of violent crimes, but rather will lead to a substantial increase in them. No one doubts the need for more thorough checks of potential buyers, closer supervision of trades along the right to own property.

Gun control is a couple of laws and policies that are used to regulate the sale and possession of firearms to protect civilians. Gun control may sound like a good thing, however, it has great potential to be one of the worst solutions for society. This can be related to Chicago. Chicago has one of the most authoritarian gun laws in American but has one of the highest gun crimes with 4,331 shooting victims. Gun control will only make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to acquire guns for protection, hence giving criminals the upper hand to commit crimes against innocent citizens.

One of the main disagreements is that there needs to be more gun control because there is an abundant amount of people being murdered in mass shootings and no actions are being made. But little do people know is that these mass shootings happen because of gun control, people fail to ask the question, how do teens obtain such weapons? To be granted a permit or license to purchase, possess or carry any firearm you have to be the age of 21 or above, The simple answer is they obtain them illegally, therefore increasing gun control will only hurt law-abiding citizens who are only trying to protect themselves. When these shootings happen the first thing the government does is discuss gun control. Because people are in so much shock when these mass shootings happen they are more drawn in to listen to a plan of action on how to deal with these gun control, plans that will affect the entire future of America.

Yet, many people do not realize that most of the mass shootings are committed with weapons that can be acquired legally. Prohibiting assault rifles will not reduce or solve the crime rate and only a small percent of gun crimes are committed with assault rifles. People are wary of assault rifles because they feel that those weapons are displayed by the military, and are portrayed as too powerful, and should not be used by anyone else. Although the military uses fully automatic weapons which are illegal, the assault rifles that can be purchased are semi-automatic meaning they only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, which is technically more environmentally safe. Another misunderstanding is that assault rifles are way too powerful for citizens to keep in their homes. This is mistaken because assault rifles are only as strong as the amount of ammunition you put in them. Putting a ban on assault rifles would not reduce the crime rate it would just take away protection from the citizens.

stricter gun laws will not stop mass shootings there are more serious issues that have to be looked at, but what people seem to forget is that guns don’t kill people, people do. There are other solutions that can be done to prevent gun crimes and it is not just censoring violent video games, T.V. shows, and movies. People need to be psychologically analyzed, not just for gun owners but for everyone. A physiological evaluation will help benefit not only the health of everyone but it could prevent a lot of crimes in general, not just gun crimes. Most of the time after a crime is committed and the suspect is evaluated, it is usually found that they have a mental illness. It shouldn’t take the crime to occur to then evaluate someone’s mental health. Seeking help for a mental illness has a connotation of being a negative thing, and whoever has to get mental help is apparently an unstable person. This results in people keeping things to themselves and not seeking any form of help, which leads to them keeping all of that person’s problems within themselves contained.

Handguns play a major role when it comes to gun crimes which is why they are harder to obtain than assault rifles, and the reason for that is you can conceal a handgun more efficiently than an assault rifle and this is something a lot of people who believe in gun control will say. However, this is the reason why we should not add more gun laws. The more gun laws the government put will not prevent the criminal from buying and trading guns illegally, adding more laws is just gonna disarm the law-abiding citizens who need to have the gun in order to protect themselves. Even with Chicago’s strict gun laws teens that are under the age of 17 are killed four times more often than the teens in New York, according to NY Times.

Guns should be used to protect and defend, so taking that away will only hinder the public. Being able to own weapons will allow people to protect themselves from a dictatorial government, and with most of the people in the United States, the ideal thing would be to own weapons to protect themselves from a possible Fourth Reich. Instead of removing guns from users or future owners, why doesn’t the government try and educate people about firearms before handing them a gun, for example before becoming eligible to drive and obtain a license you need to take driving classes. So in order to obtain a firearm, you should be required to learn the dangers and possible accidents that can happen.

To conclude guns give people the chance to protect themselves. Putting more restrictions doesn’t help the main problem it would only hinder responsible gun owners. The real criminals aren’t going to follow the updated regulations, that’s why they are labeled criminals, putting more gun control laws will only give criminals the upper hand. If they want to put an extra step into buying a gun to make sure it is in the right hands the better thing to do would be mental health check every once in and while. The problem isn’t the guns, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The best thing to do is find the root of the problem which is believed to be the amount of ammunition that is being distributed and not trying to disarm the people.

The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac’s Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764. Four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown and killed nine or ten children. Only two children survived.

The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires schools in any state receiving certain federal funding to implement a one-year expulsion rule for students who bring a firearm to school. Students found in possession of a firearm must also be referred to the criminal justice or juvenile justice system.

THESIS

School shootings have impacted the world both socially and politically. Depending on how they are viewed, it could either have a positive or negative outcome. The negative side is pretty obvious, since lives are destroyed and communities are left to fear for their lives. On the other hand, school shootings are a way for the government to get new laws and acts passed to help ensure a safer future for Americans no matter where they are.

Political Impact: (Presidents, elections, political parties, military, foreign policy, domestic policy)

School shooting has had a huge impact on politics. It has sparked a lot of debates about gun control and violence. There has been many bill’s trying to get passed for example, Vermont, which until this year had some of the loosest gun laws in the country, passed several measures to tighten its laws, including a ban on guns in K-12 schools, a red-flag law, and a law that expands background checks and bans high-capacity magazines. A red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. Since Parkland, red flag laws have gained support from lawmakers of both major political parties and groups on both sides of the gun-policy divide. Last year, eight new red flag bills were signed into law.

Social Impact: (cultural, morality, minorities, women, changes in education, entertainment)

School shootings have a massive impact of the lives of many people, regardless of the role they had in the shooting. Most people in the community surrounding the area where the shooting occurred are left traumatized by the experience and fear for the safety of themselves and their children returning to school. Research has shown that PTSD is very common to develop among the survivors. There is also a mental disease called survivors guilt, which makes the ones who made it out safely question the reason they were not shot or killed during the shooting. In recent news, there has been a series of school shooting survivors who have fallen victim to PTSD or survivors guilt and taken their own life. Some of the people who have taken their life due to those disorders, reported to not being able to move past the event, and the stress or anxiety took over their life. These effects can last for years after the event is over and can form in students, teachers, or emergency responders that were in the building and witnessed horrific scenes. Other people who may be left traumatized could be parents or families in community, people in the surrounding area, or even someone just watching the event on the news.

A red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. (Denverpost 1)

The federal government later effectively banned bump stocks nationwide, with a regulation signed by acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker requiring most gun owners to destroy or turn in the devices by March 26. (Melendez 1)

New Jersey passed a series of gun legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, limiting magazine sizes to 10 rounds, allowing guns to be temporarily seized if the owner is deemed dangerous, requiring background checks for private gun sales (Melendez 1)

In the aftermath of the shootings, many schools across America enacted “zero-tolerance” rules regarding disruptive behavior and threats of violence from students.(Denverpost 1)

PTSD can develop in people who have experienced intense trauma as well as in people who have been exposed to someone else’s severe trauma. (Social-Consequences-1)

Any child who experiences a school shooting has a 77% chance of developing PTSD. Other negative effects could include changes in school performance, difficulty with authority or criticism and re-experiencing the trauma through nightmares. (Affect Society 1)

Bystanders who witness a school shooting may witness burned, disfigured, bloody or dead bodies causing the sense of having a lack of control over the situation. That feeling has a very important role in making people feel insecure, terrified or traumatized.

School shootings rarely involve large numbers of victims, but even just a single student getting killed in a shooting has an impact on the lives of people far beyond the ones directly involved. (School-Shootings-1)

After the columbine shooting “On April 20, it took Harris and Klebold about half an hour to ignite a national gun-control debate that has smoldered for a year. Within a week, President Clinton introduced legislation banning private weapons sales at gun shows.”(Denverpost 1) this relates to the thesis because in the thesis we talked about laws created in response to school shooting and debates that started in response and this is evidence of both laws created and debates “the stress of such events on the rest of society. That includes those who survived the shooting; those who were in the vicinity, including the first responders; those who lost someone in the shooting; and those who hear about it via the media.”

This relates to the thesis because the article talks about the negative impact shootings have on the lives of many people no matter what role they had in the shooting. In our thesis, we touched on the negative effects shootings have on people’s lives.

“11 states passed laws in 2018 that restrict gun access to people linked to domestic violence, and eight states, plus the District of Columbia, created ways to temporarily keep guns from dangerous or “at risk” people, according to data from the Giffords Law Center, a gun control advocacy group.”(Melendez 1) This piece of evidence supports the thesis because it shows how laws are being passed faster and more effectively, it also shows how school shooting are effecting states and how they are causing fear.

Laws have been created to help ensure the safety of children at school. People have been made very aware of the topic countrywide because of the increasing rates of shootings

Many peoples lives have been harmed or destroyed by traumatizing events such as school shootings so there is an increasing amount of places for those people to receive the help they need.

Conclusion

School shooting have mostly had a negative effect on the world, because of the loss of lives and fear to go to school but there are some positives as well. Some of the positives include the availability to get gun laws passed much faster than usual and also how communities are now making efforts to ensure safety in schools as well as in the community.

With the unfortunate boost of mass shootings sprawling across the United States, it has become apparent that places that are supposed to be a safe haven for children are not cleared from the wrath of mass shooters. With the spike of school shootings, it has become a political turmoil. The two sides quarreling about whether to give the United States stricter gun laws or to continue the right to bear arms with little to no restriction. In one of the most recent school shootings that took place in Parkland, Florida where seventeen teachers and students were shot and killed, action was finally taken, but not an action that was necessary. In a National Education Association article “Arming teachers is not the answer.” written by Cindy Long and Tim Walker, they found that Florida lawmakers and the Trump administration see it fit, as a form of protection to place guns in the classroom instead of just placing a restriction altogether. A bill has been currently passed through our legislation stating that teachers would be trained to carry firearms putting 10 armed educators in every school (Long). This bill would arm around roughly 37,000 schools statewide (Long). For children, school is a place where they should feel safe and secure and grudgingly the government feels that fighting fire with fire by arming teachers is the real resolution. With this bill, teachers not only have to worry about actual school shooters, but with being responsible with the guns around children. They also need to be concerned about being held accountable if they are disarmed by a student, cause an accidental fire, and even having to add more chaos to their already hectic schedule.

The Trump administration and the Florida lawmakers passed the bill without acknowledging those who have to deal with it first hand, the teachers. According to CNBC article “73 percent of teachers oppose guns in schools, Gallup finds” created by reporter Annie Nova, that in a Gallup survey of 497 educators, it was discovered that out the amount of educators who teach kindergarten through 12th grade, a massive 73% of the 497 had an opposition to being armed (Nova). Not only did a mass majority of the educators not support the bill, but stated that they would refuse training if the option was made available to them (Nova). Not only are teachers uncomfortable with this bill, but a loaded gun casually strapped on to an educator is an accident waiting to happen and when exposed to students in a small classroom setting, it could be fatal. Shortly after the bill in Florida had been passed, there were already two incidences of accidental fire by firearm in a classroom. Bill Hutchinson in an ABC News story “2 accidental shootings at US schools, one by armed teacher, the other by resource officer” writes the article about the two incidents. The first incident took place in California’s Seaside High School, when Dennis Alexander, an armed teacher at the school and a reserve officer of Sand City, accidentally fired his firearm while in a classroom teaching his students about public safety awareness (Hutchinson). Luckily no one was injured. The second incident took place in Alexandria, Virginia in George Washington Middle School. The incident began when the schools resource officer and five year veteran of the Alexandria Police Department accidentally fired his weapon in his office (Hutchinson). Luckily in this story as well, no one was injured, and did not take place inside a classroom, however having firearms in the classroom not only places all of the responsibilities on the teachers, but on the children as well. Children are young, naive, do not have a grasp on the consequences of their actions, and sometimes their curiosity gets the best of them, which is yet another reason why guns do not have a place in the classroom. In another ABC news article, “Students grabbing guns from officers highlights the dangers of weapons at school” written by Whitney Lloyd, she goes into the details of a case in Minnesota involving a third grade boy who removed a firearm from the resource officer’s holster. Once the boy obtained the gun he accidentally shot into the floor of the gymnasium (Lloyd). Whitney Lloyd also goes into the details of two more stories similar to students grabbing guns from their superiors, but these stories involve older students who instead of having an innocent or naive motive, their intent was to do harm. In Michigan, a high school student was accused of grabbing the sheriff deputy’s holster shortly after assaulting his ex-girlfriend in the hallway. He grabbed the sheriff’s gun so violently that he fired the firearm and the bullet hit the ground and ricocheted off the wall (Lloyd). The other incident took place in Kansas when resource officers were called to calm down a sporadic and unruly student. When the student saw one of the resource officers he quickly began getting violent and tried to retrieve the officer’s gun during an attack (Lloyd). In these three cases of students obtaining firearms, no one was injured, but it is so clearly shown in these five stories all together that shortly occurred after the bill had been passed sets an example that accidents can happen and more importantly, it can happen to highly trained professionals that had firearm training with one even being a police officer veteran. Anyone can get distracted and make a mistake, we are all human, but when it comes to a loaded gun that can lead to a dire situation and can even be the cause of an accidental death of a child, it is not to be taken lightly. Teachers in the school are most likely not trained with firearms like officers are and they are in schools to primarily teach the youth. Educators can easily be taken advantage of by a curiously naive child or a violent teenager.

In today’s events, educators are of course the ones who have the right to decide whether they choose to carry a firearm, or continue to have class without one. While a mass majority of educators do not approve of Trump’s new reform, some educators believe it is the answer and already carry a gun to class. In the CNN article “These schools say arming teachers can be done right’ written by Nicole Chavez, she brings a light on the unpopular side of the argument. After the tragic Sandy Hook shooting where more than twenty children and teachers were killed, a school district in Arkansas decided to take actions into their own hands by training and arming more than a dozen educators and staff members (Chavez). Another school that decided to take action was the Clarksville School District. They have their educators, janitors, and other staff members armed and ready in case of a rampage shooter (Chavez). Jim Krohn, a social studies teacher at Clarksville junior high who decided to be one of the teachers armed, believes that the program in place is an excellent solution. ‘If we didn’t do this and somebody came into this building or any of our school buildings and harmed children, it would be hard to go to sleep that night thinking what else could I have done and at least we’ve done what we think is the best thing to protect the children of Clarksville school district” (Chavez). Not only does this bill make teachers feel more powerful and ready during school shootings, but it also makes their students feel safer. A school about 85 miles north of Dallas decided to add a “guardian program” which is essentially just having armed teachers that have volunteered to carry firearms. (Chavez). This program is praised by the schools superintendent Clugston by stating, ‘We’ll do whatever’s necessary to protect our kids and staff. We don’t want to be at the mercy of someone that’s intent on doing harm” (Chavez). With this program, children feel safer knowing that their teachers are able to protect them if something were to happen (Chavez). Though a small majority of teachers believe that this is the answer, there is still a reason why 73% of them don’t follow through with this bill.

While it is noble for some educators and staff to feel that they need to battle the shooter head- on, it is not likely that this is the reality. Other than the examples of accidental fire and students disarming officers with ease, a Vox article, “The case against arming teachers” with statistics, German Lopez refutes the arguments on more guns means more safety. The policy of having more guns in schools is alarming based on the fact that there is little to no valuable research on if this bill would actually benefit schools and the children. This in itself is odd, a policy with this much girth can impact the lives of parents, teachers, and even students has no graspable research and evidence. The research and evidence that is currently available is that more guns equals more violence. The United States has the highest number of firearms owned in the world. With a 2007 study showing the amount of firearms owned by civilians was 88.8 per 100 people and out of all the developed countries in this world, the United States has the highest number of death by firearm cases with the death percentage also including mass shooting victims (Lopez). Though mass shootings only make up 2% of deaths by firearm according to CNN, “the United States only makes up 5% of the population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters’ (Lopez). The percentage regardless if it looks small, still packs a huge punch. It says a lot about the United states where mass shootings are a normal occurrence, but only makes up 2% of firearm deaths. With the spike of guns and violence from these weapons in the United States, statistics clearly shows that putting more guns, especially in schools on top of a already present gun issue will not resolve, but instead boost the issue. In the last argument pro armed teachers make is that teachers will have the ability to protect students with the weapons that are provided by the government. Not only does that place the life and responsibility of a child’s life in the hands of a school teacher, but it also isn’t likely. There has been multiple simulations conducted and it has been found that most people that are placed in the way of a rampage shooter not only fail at protecting the children, they also get themselves killed in the process (Lopez). Even Coby Briehn, a senior instructor at advanced law enforcement rapid response training, claims that teachers can never get enough training to be completely ready for the case of a school shooter. Officers will even lose their lives trying to engage a shooter to get them to back down with a percentage of 46.7 suffering from injuries or dying by trying. (Lopez). Officers are people that risk their lives, train and prepare their entire careers to engage with armed perpetrators and the percentage of them dying from this is huge. To imagine a teacher trying to stop a rampage shooter successfully is extremely unlikely and could end up with them suffering from injuries or dying in the process.

Regardless if you are pro-arming teachers or anti-arming teachers one thing is certain, we all want to take our children to school knowing that while they are there they will be safe and secure. In present times, we cannot do that anymore. We never know when or where the next rampage schooling will take place; however, in this time of fear and anxiety we must not fight fire with fire. Arming teachers does not solve the issue of gun violence against children, but instead can make it worse. Teachers even with proper training have no reason or place to have the responsibility of risking their lives trying to stop a rampage shooter with a firearm when it has been proven that the outcome of them surviving is unlikely. Children who have an overwhelming sense of curiosity should not be in the position that if they were to disarm an educator they could accidentally kill a classmate, and teenagers who are already not mentally sane should not have easier access already in a school to grab the gun of a resource officer and start shooting. People with a passion for education are not put on this earth to have a part time job as a bodyguard, but they are here to teach the youth and they are here to show kindness and caring. Arm teachers with higher wages, supplies, and support, not guns.