Gun control legislation in America is far too lenient. In fact it is borderline non existent. Everyday, all across America, innocent people are being harmed or killed accidentally because of irresponsible gun usage. The majority of gun related injuries in children happen accidentally. For instance, Robert Sege, director of the Division of Family and Child Advocacy at Boston Medical Center is quoted as saying “In children under age 10, 75% of hospitalizations were due to unintentional injuries” (Healy). Not only does this need to change because there are children being harmed, but  we are not doing anything to keep this from happening. The problem at hand does not stop at the initial harm of the child, but also the aftermath. Namely, Michelle Healy, a journalist for USA Today explains that there are many treatments that a child must go through after being harmed in this way, both physically and emotionally (Healy). What happens when a family is unable to access sufficient treatment for the child? It is one thing when a major health issue is virtually unavoidable genetically, biologically, or because of some sort of illness, but a major health issue because of an accident? Accidental gun wounds happen far too often. For example, data from the Florida Department of Health shows almost half of the people rushed to the hospital with nonfatal gun wounds were not intentionally shot (Stutzman). Any number of gun wounds should be enough to make us recognize that there is a problem here. Almost half of said gun wounds being accidental, is far too many for us to not be acting on this problem. An accident with a gun, can cause a lifetime of damage, not only to the person but to the community, and as of right now we are not doing anything to prevent that.

Background check regulations in America are far too insouciant. Currently, nationally, when someone goes to buy a gun from a private seller, a background check isn’t necessary, although, the specifics of the law change from state to state. This is referred to as the “gun show loophole”  ( Cooper, Schmidt, and Luo). Because of the gun show loophole, a mentally unstable, potentially harmful person, or criminal, could obtain a gun. Simply making background checks mandatory, even for private sellers, could make some sort of difference. Enforcing background checks is not taking guns away from anyone, it is making access to guns harder for people who are unfit for gun ownership. The director of UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, Garen Wintemute, is quoted as saying, “Guns remain widely available to individuals who are clearly at risk of committing such violence… and authorities have few tools to intervene” (Vartabedian). By attempting to keep the authorities from intervening, we are spending more time and effort trying to save this idea of ideal protection, the second amendment, then we are spending on trying to protect our physical selves. Regulating who has access to a gun, and tracking gun sales, does not infringe on our constitutional right to own guns, it only further protects us, which is the objective of the constitution in the first place.

Guns and gun violence are making their way into schools, harming and killing more and more children, students, and teachers, each year. In fact, “A fatal shooting in Oregon on Tuesday [June 10th 2014] was the 31st firearms attack at a U.S. school since the start of the year”

(Vartabedian). Any number of school shootings is too many, let alone thirty-one by June. Sadly, the vast majority of these school shootings go unheard of. Big or small, children and teachers killed or just injured, a school shooting is a school shooting, and school shootings should not be happening. Similarly to many other issues and arguments with gun control, many of the actions taken regarding school shootings are not there to prevent the shooting from occurring, but there to protect as a shooting occurs. For example, an article in the Washington Times explains that, “Similar to fire drills, some schools practice locking down classrooms, among their responses to potential violence” (Hefling). Although it is very good that we have plans in place for if something were to go awry, we need plans that keep guns out of schools in the first place. Too many lives are being lost for us not act preventatively.

Yes, stricter gun control would not necessarily stop a criminal if they really wanted to do damage. Even with enforced background checks for both private and commercial sellers, there would still be potential for a serious illegal gun trading business, straw buyers, or gun theft. There is also nothing to be done about the guns that people already possess. Because we do not trace gun sales, we can not expect everyone to tell us who they are and what type of gun they have, this is especially apparent with criminals. Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League is quoted as saying, "It is ludicrous to expect people that have firearms capable of holding 15 rounds to only load 10 rounds inside of them... Do criminals really care about these laws?" ( Brady, Mungin, Cohen, Steinhauser, and Pearson). This is true, criminals would not necessarily care about the laws we passed, but the laws would hopefully stand as a deterrent, or make it harder for them to commit a crime. Despite this, the lack of urgency we have regarding gun control is not acceptable. Stricter background checks and regulations regarding who can buy and sell guns may not be the answer, but it is a good place to start.

Of course the Constitution is brought up in the gun control debate. The Constitution is a compilation of our rights as Americans, it talks about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and most pertinent, according to the constitution, the right to a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (US Const. amend. II). Does regulating gun ownership infringe upon this right as an American? Should this even be something we have the right to as individuals, or should it solely be for well regulated militias, like it was originally intended? This concept, like the rest of the constitution, has been devised and enforced for our protection. The idea behind this is that if we are able to have weapons, we are able to protect ourselves. When do we consider the fact that this right, intended to protect us, has caused more harm than help. Some people think the harm is from the sheer force of some types of guns, and the amount of ammunition we are allowing. For example, when talking about the argument regarding how many bullets one should have, an article about home defense sums it up nicely, “if you’re a crack shot who’s fully prepared for a gun battle and cool under pressure, you’ll need less bullets than someone who isn’t.

Unfortunately, there’s no way of knowing how you’ll perform in combat” (Fargo). There is no right number of bullets someone could have, there will always be the what if. Would an intruder have gotten as far had the victim had one more bullet? Were thirty rounds really necessary to stop an intruder?

There is no easy fix when dealing with gun violence, but something needs to change. We can not sit back and watch school shooting after school shooting, saying we will do something about it but never actually following through. When considering our rights, we need to consider the safety of our people too. The United States of America, as the leaders of the free world, needs to lead by example, and enact viable gun control legislation.

Works Cited
Cooper, Michael, Michael S. Schmidt, and Michael Luo. "Loopholes in Gun Laws Allow Buyers to Skirt Checks." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.
Farago, Robert. "How Many Bullets Do You Need in Your Home Defense Handgun? - The Truth About Guns." The Truth About Guns. N.p., 25 July 2010. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
"Guns To Surpass Car Accidents As Leading Cause Of Deaths Among Young People." ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 22 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Healy, Michelle. "Twenty Young People a Day Hospitalized for Gun Injuries." Gannett News Service 2014 jan 24: N.p. DB - SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. .
Hefling, Kimberly. "School Shootings Continue Despite Safety Emphasis." Washington Times 2014 feb 03: N.p. DB - SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. .
Mungin, Lateef, Tom Cohen, Paul Steinhauser, Michael Pearson, and Brittany Brady. "Connecticut Governor Signs Sweeping Gun Measure." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Vartabedian, Ralph. "Gun Violence at Schools Keeps Rising." Los Angeles Times 2014 jun 12: A.10 DB - SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. .