I want to first start out by saying that I am not here to advocate for the removal of your guns. There is a difference between control and banning. However, I do believe that a ban on assault weapons and accessories that can upgrade a normal weapon to an assault weapon is a step in the right direction.

I think it is also important to highlight the second amendment in this conversation. The Constitution was written by our founding fathers to keep our country safe, protected, and running smoothly. While some might argue that the latter may not be coming to fruition, I believe the Constitution is a very important document that should be followed and taken seriously. That being said, I am a full supporter of the second amendment. It is your right to bear weapons, under the correct procedures. However, regulation on the ways people are able to buy weapons is something that is crucial in continuing to keep our country safe, protected, and running smoothly.

What many people opposed to gun control do not realize, is that gun regulations have been around since before the second amendment was ratified in 1791. Regulations were once placed on the storage of gunpowder in homes, the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans was once a criminal act, loaded guns were once banned from Boston homes, and there were even door-to-door surveys about the ownership of guns. All of these were forms of gun control. The second amendment protects one’s rights to bear weapons, but it is not unlimited. In the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protected the right to bear guns, but that it was not unlimited and was subject to legal restrictions due to things such as criminal record, mental illness, school zones, and government buildings. This ruling also made it clear that weapons with high power might be subject to regulation as well.

While there are some laws regulating the purchase and circulation of guns, I believe that in today’s society, these laws and regulations need to be much tougher. It should not be as easy as walking into a gun show and being able to buy a gun from an independent individual with no prior procedures. The “Gun Show Loophole” is something that exists because of a lack of legislation requiring stricter background checks and formal buying and selling of weapons. All guns should be registered. Just like your car or your house, they need a title. And during the purchase of a weapon, the title should be handed over through a process at the DMV. Through this method, people that do not pass background checks, have been listed as mentally unstable, or are underaged, are not allowed to purchase weapons as easily.

In the case of assault weapons, there is no question on whether or not to ban them. The fact that someone can add an accessory to a gun and immediately turn it into a major assault weapon that can fire as fast as a machine gun is honestly terrifying to me. When Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School carrying a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle and 22 30-round magazines, he should have no longer been protected under the Constitution. Regulations on accessories and high power weapons can bring down the death statistic attached to guns and reduce shootings of innocent six to seven-year-olds and civilians attending concerts, like the ones in Las Vegas.

Even with stricter regulations on the purchase of guns, there is always an argument that guns will still be bought illegally. Just like drugs and alcohol, this statement proves very true for guns as well. However, according to the New York Times, “a vast majority of guns used in 19 recent mass shootings were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least nine gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.” So yes, guns will still be bought illegally, just like prohibited drugs, but statistics show that the majority of gunmen involved in mass shootings bought their weapons legally and were allowed to after passing a background check that, in my opinion, is obviously faulty.

While I completely understand that restrictions on guns cannot prevent mass shootings, it can greatly complicate the process of buying guns, making them harder to acquire, and hopefully reducing the number of shootings in America.

When a child misbehaves, you take away their toys.

I think it’s time to take away the toys.

I’ve grown up in a family where guns have always been prominent. I was raised to believe that it is and always should be our right to have them in our homes whether it be for hunting or personal protection. Everyone in my family who is at the appropriate age has their concealed carry permit and is always packing. It is not uncommon to go to hug a cousin at Thanksgiving dinner and feel a gun tucked into the belt of his or her jeans. As I have grown old enough to form my own opinions, I still stand by my family’s beliefs.

We no longer live in a safe world. Tragedy strikes all the time. It has gotten to the point where most people aren’t even phased when they see the latest story on the news.

Everyone needs someone or something to blame when tragic events happen. In most cases, the blame falls on an inanimate object.

Most guns being used in violent attacks are semi-automatic. Most of the guns in circulation are semi-automatic. The only difference in a Glock .45 and an AR-15 is the intimidating body style of an AR-15. Both guns fire at the same speed, which is as fast as a person can pull the trigger, so banning the sale of an AR-15 because it “looks scary” is not an okay reason.

Along with guns, the blame is often placed on the National Rifle Association (NRA). Contrary to popular belief, the NRA does not actually campaign for human beings to buy guns and go out and kill other human beings with them. The NRA does, in fact, campaign for the banning of sale and circulation of ‘bump stocks’. ‘Bump stocks’ are pieces that can be added to semi-automatic guns to turn them fully automatic, in turn, making them far more lethal.

I feel like the threat of possibly losing my sense of protection is an attack on my second amendment rights. We cannot be forced to give up our freedom because of some people that take advantage of it. Laws do not prevent tragedy. People are going to hurt others because it is their mindset, and taking away guns is just going to prevent people from protecting themselves.

People will kill people, that is just the world we live in.

I understand that gun control is not ‘gun taking,’ but if we begin to allow certain restrictions, ‘gun taking’ will not be far off. Making guns inaccessible is not a practical solution. Just like drugs and alcohol, people will always find a way to get their hands on them.

As a young woman, I will get my concealed carry permit when I can. I will be living on my own at some point and I see it as a way to protect myself.

Charles W. Cooke, in Why Would Anyone Want a Firearm? puts it this way:

“A five-foot-tall, 110-pound woman is in a certain sense “armed” if she has a kitchen knife or a baseball bat at her disposal. But, if the six-foot-four, 250-pound man who has broken into her apartment has one, too, she is not likely to overwhelm him. If that same woman has a nine-millimeter Glock, however? Well, then there is a good chance of her walking out unharmed. From the perspective of our petite woman, there is really no way for the state to endorse her right to defend herself if it deprives her of the tools she needs for the job.”

There is always a possibility of something happening. You cannot always defend yourself by being aware of your surroundings and locking your doors. Our pink pepper spray keychains are not going to stop a bullet.

Guns don’t kill, people do.