A month after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas and the racist mass shooting in Buffalo New York, President Biden signed off on gun safety legislation. This bill includes incentives for states to pass “red-flag” laws that let groups petition courts to remove weapons from people that are deemed dangerous to others or themselves. The bill also expands on an existing law that prohibits people with domestic abuse convictions from owning guns, to include dating partners and not just spouses. Finally, the bill expands background checks on people ages 18-21 who want to purchase guns. The National Rifle Association opposes this bill. They believe that “This legislation can be abused to restrict lawful gun purchases, infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans, and use federal dollars to fund gun control measures being adopted by state and local politicians.” Furthermore, those who are against gun control argue we should arm teachers and put things such as metal detectors in schools to make them safer.
The opposing side of this issue argues that we need stricter gun control laws instead. They argue, why spend money arming and training already overworked teachers, when we could implement laws that make it harder to get a gun. When Missouri repealed its gun permit law, it saw a 25% increase in gun related killings, showing that legislation can be effective in reducing deaths. Putting a stop to the obstruction of taxpayer funded research into gun related injuries and deaths would be another important measure.
Research shows that more guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire compared to on duty police officers and active military members. Because of these reasons, many are saying guns are a public health crisis that should be addressed as so. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration researches automobile deaths and seat belt usage to create safer roads. A similar strategy could be used to reduce gun related deaths.
Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/25/1107626030/biden-signs-gun-safety-law
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-clear-gun-control-saves-lives/
Dear Ema,
I am pleased by your post, “Debates over gun control laws in the United States,” because it provided information from both sides about what people think about gun control. Also, you talk about what some of the outcomes will come from the decisions.
One sentence you wrote that stands out for me is: “This legislation can be abused to restrict lawful gun purchases, infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans, and use federal dollars to fund gun control measures being adopted by state and local politicians.” I think this is important because many don’t see or know what these changes will cause. It might also cause problems in government.
Thanks for your writing. I look forward to seeing what you write next because I really enjoyed how much you showed information you showed and weren’t a very pro on a side. Also how you provide the important information.
Evelin
Dear Ema,
I was very pleased to read your post, “Debates over Gun Control Laws in the United States”, because of your unique, yet important view on the subject. Although, your view is more one that is descriptive of both sides to gun control, I find it to be a necessary read for those who are wanting to learn more about this subject (to make a safe decision for themselves). One sentence you wrote that stands out for me is: “This bill includes incentives for states to pass “red-flag” laws that let groups petition courts to remove weapons from people that are deemed dangerous to others or themselves.” I think this is very important to acknowledge because it is not the gun behind the crime, rather the person who pulls the trigger. Thank you for your writing. I look forward to seeing what you write next, because of the direct and blunt method in which you provide data. I hope you write more about this subject.
-Isaac
Dear Ema :
I am happy with your post, “Debates over Gun Control Laws in the United States,” because I accept the fact that people can be affected by guns. It makes less and decreases mass shootings from one group. I agree that the government should do something about this law.
One sentence you wrote that stands out for me is: “the bill expands background checks on people ages 18-21 who want to purchase guns.” I think this is unacceptable because at those ages people can’t control a gun. They can affect the meaning from a sense of role. It involves moments of anger.
Thanks for your writing. I look forward to seeing what you write next because it is an important rule to know. It is known for its 25% death rate. I agree that “gun control argues we should arm teachers and put things such as metal detectors in schools to make them safer.”
From diana