Gun Laws Need to be Updated

Back in 1783, when most guns shot one bullet at a time and necessitated a 10-step program to reload, stricter gun laws were not necessary. Now it’s 2017. The average person in possession of a semi-automatic weapon can pump out 90 rounds per minute and can empty a standard magazine in 15 seconds; a shooter with professional training can pump out 180.

Gun laws should evolve at the same rate that our firearms do. After the Las Vegas shooting, people said that it was “too soon” to talk about gun violence. Yet, if we defer the discussion to another time, then it’s never actually going to occur. Incidents of gun violence happen so frequently in this country that, by the time Twitter is finished offering 140-character condolences, another shooting has already taken place.

We can all agree that innocent people being murdered by firearms is a bad thing. So, why isn’t progress being made to prevent future incidents? Well, there is a prevailing theory, the “NRA owns congress theory.” In an Oct. 4 article in the New York Times , David Leonhardt highlights the funding that (predominantly GOP) senate and house members have received.
Sen. John McCain received $7.7 million dollars from the NRA. However, it’s fair to state that a substantial amount of that was received during his 2008 campaign. Richard Burr, the next person on that list, received $6.9 million dollars from the NRA. Right now these people hold the majority in congress; they are the ones with the power to pass gun regulations. Don’t be fooled by their sentimental words on Twitter; nothing will change. Sentiment has no actual, corporeal effect. Your thoughts and prayers don’t change our loose and permissive gun regulations. With that in mind, there are actual things that can be done.

First, cognitively recognize that increased gun regulation does not entail you losing your treasured Second Amendment rights. Increased gun regulations will make it more difficult for people like Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, to acquire firearms. Increased gun regulations also lead to things like bump stocks being banned. Bump stocks are legal, aftermarket products that allow semi-automatic weapons to mimic the fire rate of fully automatic weapons. Paddock had these stocks attached to several rifles that he used to carry out the deadliest mass shooting in the history of our country.

Secondly, issue comprehensive psychological evaluations and background checks to prospective gun owners. We understand that there were no clear mental-health issues with this past shooter; however, it has been an issue in the past. Not to perpetuate the stereotype that those struggling with mental illness are dangerous, but comprehensive evaluations can even keep firearm owners safe themselves as more than half of all recorded gun deaths are suicides. Comprehensive also means recurring; that means that everybody who has previously received a license should be subjected to the evaluations again at each renewal period.

Third, we need to seriously consider what kinds of firearms are necessary for “self-defense.” Nobody needs a highly accurate, semi-automatic rifle to defend their home; this isn’t The Purge. A .22 cal rifle, or small clip pistol are both sufficient as far as property defense is concerned. I understand that people might require more dangerous firearms for things like hunting, but even then, there should be a limitation on the amount of guns that an individual can purchase. According to an October 4th article in USA Today, Stephen Paddock bought 33 guns in the past year alone. He did this inconspicuously due to a loophole which doesn’t require assault weapon purchases to be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. By law, any firearm retailer is required to report multiple handgun purchases to the Bureau; however, for some reason multiple assault weapon purchases are not required to be reported. Since 2011, only four states have been required to report such purchases; Nevada was not one of them. Paddock is said to have purchased guns from California, Utah, Texas, and Nevada.

Regardless of your current stance on the second amendment, after this shooting, it’s sensible to believe that guns are too easy to acquire; not only are they accessible, but the caliber of weapons available to civilians is excessive. In our free market system, large nonprofit organizations (yes the NRA is a nonprofit) can compel members of congress to vote against gun regulation, even when logic demands something be done. If this still doesn’t convince you, go on Wikipedia, look at the list of school shootings in the US, and then scroll through shootings that have happened since 2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States