Illustration by Cindy Reynolds

Illustration by Cindy Reynolds

Focusing on stricter gun regulations as a solution to the problem distracts from the real underlying issue surrounding the gun debate. More preventive measures should be taken in assessing mental health and psychological motives before a gun ban or stricter laws are put in place.

The focus should be on mental health and screening to assess the motives behind why people decide to resort to violence. Before resorting to a gun ban, looking into the issues may curb some of the violence.

A gun ban will not solve the problem. People who want to harm or kill will find a way to harm or kill whether it’s with a gun or a baseball bat.

Stricter gun laws are unnecessary, a gun is a gun and one gun is just as deadly as the next if used irresponsibly. Stricter gun laws will impact the people who use their guns for hunting or recreational purposes but someone who plans to use a gun for violence can still accomplish their goal with an automatic versus a semi automatic or even a knife.

Comparatively, marijuana is an illegal drug in most states but is widely used with little regard to the law. What’s to say people won’t obtain guns illegally in the same manner even if they are banned? And in that scenario, the fear of a shooting would be even more troublesome if there is no way to reference who owned the gun and where it was purchased because the possibilities become endless if guns are banned.

The majority of gun related crimes committed are committed with unregistered guns. Thus, a ban will only cause there to be more unregistered guns and therein lays the possibility of more crime.

Research has shown that people who are raised with guns and taught how to properly handle them and know the safety precautions are more likely to use guns responsibly. The issue isn’t the guns it is the irresponsible people.

Another point to consider is that guns are not the only weapons capable of inflicting fatal injuries. People can harm others with virtually anything. Taking away guns will cause people to resort to another method. We can keep banning the newest weapon but people with a violent intent will still find a way.

This problem has a solution, but we must dig deeper than just taking away guns. Focusing on finding the motives that drive people to act violently is paramount.

Stricter screening and firearm databases could be helpful with cutting back on mentally unstable people obtaining guns, but people will find a way to inflict harm and that is the issue that must be addressed.

Gun education cannot be overlooked as a key aspect of this ongoing debate. If more people were taught about the dangers of guns, how to properly handle them and the serious ramifications they can have if used improperly, people would use more caution when handling them. Additionally, we believe that stricter training should be required for gun users. Conceal and carry license certifications should be strict and thorough.

Everything considered, Americans should reexamine the underlying issues surrounding psychological health before stricter gun laws are enacted.


  1. Elizabeth Hertmond says:

    To unknown and Samirra,
    Sure there will still be crime in America and people will be killed no matter what but banning guns will cut back on that. If the man who killed the people at Sandy Hook Elementary had a knife instead of a gun the results would have been completely different. A knife can only kill one person at a time and unless you can throw a gun really well you have to be close to the person, within stabbing distance. So no, this article does not make a good argument in saying that banning guns won’t do anything, it will do a heck of a lot, much more than this article or any other article saying to not ban guns will give it credit for.

  2. this website is very true, banning guns will not stop homicide or crime the bad will be bad and the good will be good

  3. Samirra Abdul-Aleem says:

    Why would we ban guns? Either way people kill people and if someone has the will to kill someone than they will do so whether it be a gun or a chair, and we cannot take away all things used to kill someone because that would be virtually everything. They should teach kids about gun safety and how to be responsible in the hands of a gun.

  4. Caleb Riley says:

    i thing that they should not banned because it is not the guns it is the people and if you do they will not follow the directions and also people that live in Alaska live off of guns and hunting they do not go to the grocery store, There grocery store is a gun shop

  5. I will leave a complimentary remark, however. Gun education is something that should be considered in schools. I know that sounds controversial, but it would be better a 5 year old is taught how to responsibly handle and unload a weapon by a qualified professional than to be accidentally shot in the face playing with his friend’s dad’s gun.

  6. While I can appreciate the attempt at sounding non biased, this article is both misinformed and misleading. At least that’s what it tries to be. Automatic weapons are not the guns under the scope here. Semi autos are. A semi automatic in lay men’s terms means one trigger pull, one bullet. Quite different from automatic fire. Additionally, targeting a weapon based on cosmetic features does not begin to make sense. You could take rifle that does not look like a military weapon but functions the same and it would not be targeted by the proposed ban. Had Adam Lanza had one in his possession he would have achieved the same level of destruction that he did. No less. As for the hundreds of rounds in minutes remark, I have fired hundreds of rounds in minutes with my handgun (also a semi) while utilizing no larger than ten round magazines. Like I said, a nice attempt but without credibility for obvious lack of understanding of the weaponology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *