Stricter gun regulation would limit those unqualified to handle firearms

In Opinion
(Courtesy of Flickr)

The year is quickly coming to a close, and it’s clear 2017 has made an unforgettable mark on the lives of many.

This year has made its mark because it is the deadliest year due to mass shootings in at least a decade.

Las Vegas saw 58 deaths and Texas saw 26. These are only a few of the tragedies that occurred this year but they were also the largest. Having one thing in common; they were all committed using the same weapon.

The Onion, the satirical news outlet coined the perfect phrase with a headline responding to mass shootings, “‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”

America listens to redundant speeches from government officials giving their condolences to the families of victims killed in these shootings. What isn’t talked about is what they are doing to fix the problem.

Conservatives quiver at the mere mention of implementing gun control laws. How dare the government even consider taking away their right to own a tactical rifle? How else are we to eliminate the potential home burglar or protect ourselves when the zombie apocalypse finally arrives?

Gun control should make it harder for these deranged psychopaths to get ahold of semi-automatic rifles that have been used to spray bullets into a crowd of innocent people.

Firearm regulation neither means taking guns away from those who have them, nor does it mean people should not be able to purchase guns. In fact, guns are a great tool to have for protection and defense.

Those purchasing guns should have to participate in certain procedures to keep them from falling into the wrong hands.

The current federal regulation on guns states that to purchase a handgun, one must be 21 years old, have a valid driver’s license and pass the Brady Act background check. A small list of requirements that lead to a brand-new, shiny pistol.

State regulations vary. According to the California Gun Laws website, California has some of the strictest gun regulations, one of them being a 10-day waiting period for firearms.

Like many other states, California does not require permits to purchase guns or the registration of rifles and shotguns. But it does at least require a Handgun Safety Certificate for firearms.

If policies were more strict and training was more rigorous, then gun violence may become less common and guns could even become a more useful tool for safety.

A few more procedures to save potentially hundreds of lives is more of a precaution than a stripping of rights. Procedures that are tedious make utilities safe, like driver’s license laws.

To drive a car, you must pass certain tests (written and physical driving), obtain a license and register your vehicle. Not to mention that that license has to be renewed.

If you misuse your license, it will be revoked. Seeing as how the same rules apply to owning and riding a motorcycle, it seems ludicrous that using a deadly weapon doesn’t require the same guidelines.

The fact that nothing has changed in so long shows that this problem isn’t being properly addressed. Other countries respond to high gun violence with reform, which in turn decreases the amount of gun violence.

In 2009, 15 people died at, Winnendon school in Germany from a school shooting. Soon after, Germany created a gun registry to increase the regulation of guns and gun storage.

If the U.S. followed suit and listened to public opinion, it could see a decrease in mass shooting deaths similar to other countries. The U.S. can no longer consider itself the greatest country in the world, only the deadliest.

If you liked this story, sign up for our weekly newsletter with our top stories of the week.

You may also read!

Liz Sanchez dedicates their life to change through activism and education

Editor’s Note: This story has been edited to remove claims that did not meet Daily Titan verification standards. Liz

Read More...

Samuel Goñi sacrificed to make a whole country’s dream his own

In Spain, soccer is like religion, and because of that, it is normal or even ideal to have a

Read More...

Art student captures social stigmas of men in photo series for ‘Collectively Here’ exhibit

Isolation, substance abuse, body image and grief make up stories untold by four people through black and white photographs

Read More...
  • Jim

    Just a couple of points here. First, driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
    By definition, a right cannot be withheld until you receive government permission. That’s not the way the Bill of Rights works. Furthermore, gun ownership should not be subject to the whims of future administrations. If the government is in charge of “licensing” and “training,” what keeps that future administration from making those requirements so onerous as to be a virtual ban?
    What happens in other countries, that don’t have the US Constitution, is irrelevant.
    Lastly, nothing you propose here would stop “mass shootings.” Almost without exception, the shooters were already either not eligible to own a firearm under current law, or had passed background checks because the government that you trust with your rights is unable to keep a simple database up to date.

  • GunFarce

    Registries don’t work period… Misguided Liberals in Canada tried it, they wasted 2 BILLION dollars trying to register 7 million guns, of which 5 million were already registered hand guns. Can you even imagine the cost of trying to register 300 million guns in the U.S. Hand guns are the #1 choice of firearm for the Canadian Criminal. Canada has registered handguns since 1934. You would think that after 84 years of registration, if something was going to work you would know by now. The conservative government eliminated the long gun registry in Canada in 2012 as being useless. The short gun registry is just as useless, but it’s ingrained into liberal minds that it keeps them safe even though in that 84 years of registration, the handgun registry has never once solved, or even helped with the solving of a criminal act. The U.S. would fair no better, But hey! if it makes a liberal ‘feel’ safer it’s only billions of your tax dollars and all the politicians are protected by armed security anyway…

  • tom2

    Deranged psycopath? Paddock? Your side besmirched Trump for saying it was a mental health problem. Can’t have it both ways. Besides, nobody yet knows what went wrong with him. Zombie apocalypse? We haven’t had one of those for months. Here’s a fair way to handle the reciprocity legislation. Allow states to opt out. If they do, their residents will be forbidden from driving cars in the 41 states that opt in. Seems fair. In other words, 41 states would recognize drivers and concealed carry licenses from each other and would jail drivers from the nine recalcitrant states. Those that opt out would allow neither drivers nor carriers from the other 41 states to cross their state lines.

  • tom2

    Good thought. I had forgotten about the Canadian Long Gun Registry disaster. But we also have our own fiasco to brag about. Maryland operated the “ballistic fingerprinting” system for about 15 years. It cost the taxpayers $5 million (they claimed), piled up mountains of casings, projectiles and digital photos. Predictably, none of it ever contributed to the solution of any crime. Not giving up, they still cling to the “microstamping” option but that’s another story.

Mobile Sliding Menu