Jessica BadiaProfessor Anne Kretsinger-HarriesCAS 138T1 April 2013

Small Sacrifices Can Lead to Big Changes

Recent occurrences of mass shootings and the increase in gun violence in the U.S. have

brought the issue of gun control to the attention of the public and government. Gun control is

now a hot topic that is currently being debated across the country. The shooting that pushed the

issue towards the top of the government’s list of priorities occurred in Connecticut. This shooting

took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School and resulted in the deaths of twenty children, ages

six and seven, and six adults ("Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?"). Now the

issue is more than just how guns can be controlled in order to prevent any more events like this

one to happen again. It is also about giving people a greater peace of mind in their everyday lives

and making this country a safer place for everyone, especially children. If we cannot protect our

children we are failing in one of our duties as citizens of this country. In response to these recent

mass shootings, the government should pass President Obama’s four legislative proposals and

23-step plan for gun control immediately. The government needs to be strict and stern in its

decisions on gun control, and this plan will ensure that this happens through banning military

style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, expanding background checks, and

toughening gun trafficking laws.

The urgent need for stricter gun laws has been proven through the tragedies that I

explained, but those are not the only reasons for which these laws are needed. The U.S. is ranked

number one in gun ownership, meaning that our citizens have the most guns in the world. While

places like the Netherlands have very low amounts of gun violence every year, we have some of

the highest amounts of gun violence. The difference between the countries is that one does not

allow its’ citizens to own guns, while the other does. Clearly, not all guns can be taken away

from U.S. citizens, because we do have the right to bear arms, but that does not meant that we

should easily be able to obtain guns that were meant for war. People can easily go to a gun show

and buy military weapons without any kind of background check. There are too many loopholes

in how people can obtain guns without these checks. The checks aren’t even that effiecient when

they are actually done, because they are not as in depth as they should be. It is time that we work

towards keeping guns out of the wrong hands in order to prevent anymore tragedies from

happening. Also, these mass shootings are not our only problem, because the FBI’s crime clock

estimates that gun violence occurs about every 25 seconds, so as you were reading this, how

many crimes with guns occurred according to this stat? Do you feel the need for this to change

yet?

Each one of President Obama’s legislative proposals has been proposed in order to

reduce gun violence. Anything that needs to be done in order to prevent another shooting like the

event in Connecticut is 100% worth it, because saving lives is much more important than being

able to own guns. In his speech delivered on January 16, 2013, President Obama made a hard-

hitting statement that summarized this idea and showed people that the pros of gun control will

completely outweigh the cons. The president stated, “While no law or set of laws will end gun

violence, it is clear that the American people want action. If even one child’s life can be saved,

then we need to act. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and

the country we love” ("The White House - President Barack Obama."). In other words, if making

gun laws stricter will help save lives, it is in the best interest of the country and should selflessly

be supported. Obama also makes it clear that mass shootings are not the only problem with gun

violence and that all shootings need to be addressed. There will need to be some trade-offs and

compromising on both sides of these gun control policies, but some change is better than staying

at the current terrible state that we are currently in.

In order to reduce the problem of gun violence in America, I advocate that the federal

government should pass and implement President Obama’s four legislative proposals and

twenty-three step plan. The twenty-three steps includes the requirement of federal agents to make

all information relevant to background checks available, the breakdown of legal barriers that

make background checks less in depth, giving incentives for states with better background check

systems, reviewing information to keep those prohibited from having guns away from these

weapons, making new rules for background checks so that they are done more often, showing

sellers how to do background checks correctly, launching a responsible gun ownership

campaign, reviewing safety standards, requiring the tracing of guns in investigations, releasing

information on lost and stolen guns, nominating an ATF director, giving proper training on how

to react to shooting situations, maximizing enforcement, researching causes of gun violence,

making new gun safety technology, letting doctors ask patients about guns in their homes,

allowing health care providers to report threats of violence, giving incentives to schools with

officers, developing emergency response plans, providing mental health services through

Medicaid, making requirements within ACA exchanges, finalizing mental health regulations, and

launching a national dialogue on mental health. The proposals overview the specific plans and

need to be advocated before moving into these actual steps. President Obama stated very clearly

in his proposals that he intends to “ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity

magazines, expand background checks, and toughen gun-trafficking laws” (Baker). President

Obama’s plan will also make schools safer and will increase access to mental health services

("The White House - President Barack Obama.").

Military-style assault weapons are not necessary for anyone to own, and banning these as

well as high-capacity magazines is considered a common sense step in President Obama’s plan

to reduce gun violence. There is no doubt in my mind that citizens should be able to have guns,

because that is their right, but there is no need for them to have weapons that are used in war.

Guns should be used in a smart manner, and only allowing smaller and less powerful guns to be

owned will help that happen. The ban proposed by Obama’s plan will make weapons of mass

violence less accessible, and will therefore cause a decrease in mass gun violence. In 2010, the

Police Executive Research Forum conducted a survey that found that “more than one-third of

police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity

magazines” ("The White House - President Barack Obama."). This seems to be a result of the

expiration of the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons that occurred in

2004. It was never reinstated after it expired because it was thought to have done what it needed

to already. If this prohibition were in practice at the time of the Aurora and Newtown shootings,

the guns used would have been prohibited. This means that these shootings could have possibly

been avoided or at least done on a much smaller scale. Imagine that, all the pain that was caused

in the past year might have been prevented just by keeping the laws that were in place.

The prohibition of military-style assault weapons needs to not only be reinstated, but it

also needs to be strengthened by closing gun show loopholes, which is something that President

Obama is strongly advocating. These loopholes include making cosmetic modifications to

weapons so that they can sell more powerful weapons without them being classified as

dangerous weapons. The government needs to be thorough enough with its laws in order to avoid

people going around them. The banning of high-capacity magazines will help to also reduce the

risk of mass shootings. The law being proposed by Obama will limit magazines to 10 rounds.

People should only be able to own an amount of bullets that makes sense for what they need it

for in order to ensure that they are using them for the correct reasons. Many of the shooters in

recent mass shootings have used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, including the shooters

at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown. These magazines were also

prohibited under the old law. These facts seem to be ignored quite a bit, but the reality is that

prohibition may be the best solution to mass gun violence. As for the ammunition itself, armor-

piercing bullets need to be made illegal to possess and transfer, unless for the purpose of law

enforcement or military. These bullets are too powerful for recreational use and should not be

offered to anyone outside of the forces I previously mentioned. These banning policies alone will

greatly decrease the possibility that anyone could go out and buy a large amount of ammo and

extremely dangerous guns, and therefore they will decrease the possibility that anyone could

conduct a mass shooting ("The White House - President Barack Obama.").

I believe that most people would agree that guns are very dangerous weapons; they

should not just be handed out to anyone. Would it not make sense to verify that people who want

to own guns be thoroughly checked for their background and any criminal records? President

Obama’s plan would make these background checks required. Most people who own guns

would prefer not to extend the background check process, because that would cause them to have

to wait longer to be able to buy guns. However, this trade-off seems like a fair one if it would

ensure that less unreliable people would be in possession of guns. It has become too easy for

dangerous people to get firearms, which is why background checks need to be required for all

gun sales, which Obama laid out in his plan. The National Instant Criminal Background Check

System has helped keep more than 1.5 million guns out of the hands of criminals. The problem is

that too many guns are sold without a background check, and it is estimated that private sellers

who are not required to run background checks sell about 40% of all guns. A survey of inmates

showed that 12% of them should have had background checks when buying their guns but didn’t.

This shows that the current laws are clearly not strict enough and are not working properly,

because those who should have been checked weren’t, and those who didn’t need to be checked

should be required to get checked anywhere. President Obama’s plan tries to be fair with regards

to requiring background checks in stating that there are common-sense exceptions to these

checks, such as transferring a gun to a family member or temporarily transferring a gun for

hunting and sporting purposes. He is also giving the states funding incentives for complying with

these background checks, which proves that he is willing to give a little if the public lets him

take a little. Federal agencies will also need to help the states with these checks as much as they

possibly can. These checks will help prevent any size shooting, which also makes it an important

part of this plan. As you can see, this step to expand background checks requires a lot of help

from different sources, but by working together, these sources can make the system more

efficient and reliable ("The White House - President Barack Obama.").

As for gun trafficking, it is illegal and should have no one - besides criminals who do it -

objecting to making the laws against it tougher, as Obama’s plan would require. That is pretty

simple, but in order to help law enforcement crack down on gun trafficking, more tools need to

be given to law enforcement in order to help them prevent and prosecute gun violence. Gun

trafficking penalties need to be made harsher in order to deter people from doing it and to make a

statement to the public. This part of Obama’s plan only punishes those breaking the law, and

therefore should not be a huge problem to advocate with those who like using guns legally.

President Obama’s proposal calls for the use of 15,000 cops on the streets across the country to

make them safer. The President also wants all law enforcement agencies to trace firearms in

order to find traffickers and punish them. Every agency will therefore be provided with the

equipment and information needed to do so.

Something that may seem shocking in this entire situation is that the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – also known as ATF – has not had a director for six years.

This needs to be fixed immediately, because this agency is extremely important in the

enforcement of gun laws and needs to have a good leader if it wants to control the firearms in

this country. The ATF will also be expected to release the data it collects on lost and stolen guns

in order to keep everyone informed. It is also important to make sure that law enforcement

officers, first responders, and school officials know how to react to shooting situations correctly.

These past shootings have shown that many people react on their instincts, but that is not enough

and needs to be enhanced. Also, the freeze on gun violence research needs to be ended, health

care providers need to be informed that they can report credible threats of violence as well as talk

to their patients about gun safety, and most importantly, responsible gun ownership needs to be

made a top priority. Informing those who are using guns of how to use them properly and lock

them up the right way will help minimize reckless use of guns and will help us progress to solely

using guns when necessary ("The White House - President Barack Obama.").

As I stated in the very beginning of this paper, the children of this country need to be

protected, especially in the place that they consider their second home – school. In order to do

this, Obama believes that 1,000 more school resource officers and counselors need to be put in

schools in order to teach students and faculty how to respond to emergency situations and also to

have more protection for the students and faculty. Schools can be given incentives in order to

make them more determined to make their schools safer for the children and faculty ("The White

House - President Barack Obama."). We all know what emergency plans are like: hide in the

corner for a lock-down drill or walk outside in an orderly fashion when there is a fire drill. These

emergency plans help people learn how to react to certain situations and to know what would be

expected if the situation was real. According to Obama’s plan, schools need to work hard to help

implement these plans and to make their environments safer and more nurturing for the sake of

the students. This will help give the faculty, students, and their parents some peace of mind given

the recent occurrences of shootings at schools.

The final part of Obama’s plan involves improving mental health services around the

country. “Less than half of children and adults with mental health problems receive the treatment

they need,” and just keeping guns out of their hands is not enough ("The White House -

President Barack Obama."). These people with mental health problems need to be treated and

helped to the best of our ability, especially when the illness is caught at a young age. One great

solution is to provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers in order for them to be able

to point out problems with students that may need professional help. Schools will also be helped

in addressing violence and its connection to mental health. To make it easier for those with

mental health illnesses, coverage of treatment need to be insured ("The White House - President

Barack Obama."). This combination of help from those surrounding you and help from the

government will make it easier for those with mental illnesses to get treated.

Overall, Obama has a very reasonable and progressive goal to reduce gun violence, and

he seems to be set on the right endpoint to save as many lives as possible through his plan. It is

not perfect in everyone’s eyes, because while some people would prefer for all guns to be

banned, others would say that Obama shouldn’t take away their rights to those guns. The truth of

the matter is that every citizen will still have the right to bear arms, but they will be restricted as

to what guns they can own and how many bullets they can have. This is not an infringement on

anyone’s rights; it is just a stricter policy on rights that were more open in the past. For example,

the freedom of speech belongs to all Americans, but that does not mean that they can go into a

movie theater and yell “fire!” There will always be a limit on how far a right can be taken, and if

the limit protects people from being killed, isn’t it at least a little bit reasonable?

The main opposition to the President’s plan comes from the National Rifle Association,

or the NRA. The NRA has argued that President Obama’s plan is focused on the wrong goals.

The main goal, according to the NRA, is to keep the children of this country safe, which they

believe can be done by increasing security at schools and allowing faculty to carry guns (NRA).

The problem with their claim is that protecting the children, though it is what lit the fire under

this issue, it is not the only important aspect of enforcing stricter gun laws. The children cannot

be forgotten, but neither can the adults who have been killed in these tragedies, because their

lives are also very much worth fighting for. Providing more security only for children in schools

will only attack part of the problem, and is leaving out adults and the times in which children are

not in school. Also, handing out more guns seems counterproductive and more dangerous.

Would you really want your kids surrounded by guns? How would you know whether or not you

could trust every faculty member in the school? Instead of just attempting to protect children, it

would be better to implement Obama’s plan. In particular, the prohibition that I described before

lasted from 1994 to 2004, and it was “a ban on the sale and production of assault weapons”

(Baker). During that time there was a great decrease in deaths by guns ("Editorial: Gun Reform

for a Generation."). This shows that implementing a policy like that again would have the

possibility of improving our current situation and would help everyone, not just the kids. It is

also a more efficient alternative to giving everyone a gun.

Another claim that the opposition to the plan makes is that the mass shootings that have

occurred have taken place within states that already had strict gun laws (NRA). Interestingly

enough, the only reason people think this is because the media shapes the minds of the public in

that way. They focus on the shootings in places where guns are not common, but you don’t hear

much about the other shootings, unless the media leaves the place where it occurred out of the

story. For example, not many people know about the shooting in Alabama in 2009 that killed 10

and injured 6, the shooting in Texas in 2009 that killed 13 and injured 30, and the shooting in

Wisconsin in 2012 that killed 6 and injured 3. These states do not have strict gun laws, but they

still have high rates in gun violence. They allow, and even encourage people to own guns, but

that does not seem to reduce gun violence at all (Morrissey).

The US is clearly having trouble with gun violence, which is why it is such a hot topic

right now, but some people beg to differ with that. People who are opposed to the new proposals

are trying to convince everyone that everything is alright and that things will get better without

the implementation of stricter gun laws, but I—and many others—do not believe this at all. The

only way for things to change is for someone to change them, and in this case, it is up to our

government to do that. President Obama has set up a great plan for the government to implement,

but now it is up to the public and its’ representatives to decide what everyone prefers. What do

you think is in the best interest of the country? Is it better to stick to the old ways of the country

that have gotten so many people killed, or to try out a new alternative that has a great possibility

of saving lives? The President stated, “… if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any

of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try” ("The White House - President

Barack Obama."). How will you fulfill your obligation?

Works Cited

Baker, Peter, and Michael D. Shear. "Obama to ‘Put Everything I’ve Got’ Into Gun Control."

The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Jan. 2013. 01 Apr. 2013. <

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-to-toughen-gun-

laws.html?pagewanted=all>

"Editorial: Gun Reform for a Generation." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Jan.

2013. 01 Apr. 2013. < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/gun-reform-for-a-

generation.html?pagewanted=all>

Morrissey, Ed. "Charts of the Day: Gun Violence in America Declining over Last 20 Years."

HotAir.com. 01 Apr. 2013. < http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/26/charts-of-the-day-

gun-violence-in-america-declining-over-last-20-years/>

"NRA." NRA. 01 Apr. 2013. <http://home.nra.org/>

"Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?" CNN. Cable News Network. 01 Apr.

2013. <http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/index.html>

"The White House - President Barack Obama." Now Is the Time. 01 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf>