Gun: The Trigger

Written By John Dickinson

English, F-Block
Mrs. Hunt
November 5, 2015
Accelerated

I am an American and therefore reserve the right to protect myself from harm, but
when does protection become a danger? Guns are one of the many, and by far one of the
most popular, methods of protection. However, there has been a high and heated debate
and opposition for its regulation. Countless lives, for many reasons, have been wounded
or taken by guns. Stronger gun regulations should be put into affect because of ineffective
past results and misunderstanding.
The past efforts of gun control and gun awareness have failed to reduce violence.
Marketing strategies have overcome efforts of control. Battleground America, an article
for the New Yorker written by Jill LePore, describes how much guns have affected our
society. It has been recorded gun ownership in America has gone down, but the amount
of guns per purchaser has increased. There have been many marketing strategies to help
with this increase, involving the persuasion for women to protect themselves. Not only
for women, the gun market aims for arming all Americans. The companies are essentially
using the Second Amendment to make a profit from Americans. While gun ownership has
decreased, the influence of the market has increased the sales of guns.
Gun ownership itself means a higher risk of violence. You may use it for target
practice or in severe moments, a tool for protection. Mostly though, it will likely be
stored away safe and collecting dust. This is until someone is enraged or a curious child
comes across it. This can lead to what we hear in the news nowadays. Conflicts within a
family and bullying are two major instigators for tragically pursuing the concealed
firearm. The third highest risk is the sale of guns themselves. There are usually forms to
sign, permits or licenses presented, and the occasional background check. These
regulations however do not apply to all sales, as seen with private selling. This is

protected by loopholes, which allow a transaction to follow with almost no trace. Lisa
Lamberts and Bill Trotts report, Senator To Renew Gun Control Push After California
Shooting Spree, speaks of U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthals address on the gunregulation debate. He states the recent increase of shootings urge for and intervention and
prevention. One thing pointed out is very true. Without the intention to, the many who
vow to perform change, to make a difference, often do not or cannot deliver. There are
many like Senator Blumenthal who can agree upon the same topic. Guns should be
restricted from purchase because they are a danger to those without and those with them.
Gun control should be enforced more because of the state of confusion and anger
guns cause. Why We Cant Talk About Gun Control, by James Hamblin, introduces an
unusual perspective. The media attention and political focus seem to be a good idea, but
in reality, the awareness can be seen as an invasion of American rights. It gives people
more ideas to act upon, more curiosity about the gun and why it is or is not dangerous. It
is unclear to some whether or not regulations are an infringement or American rights.
Marketing tactics, such as the Stand Your Ground idea and the acts surrounding it, lead
some Americans to false accusations. Many, including gun owners and corporations,
believe in this; it is the right of an American to protect yourself, but it is the morality and
mentality of the individual which decide the outcome. Guns should be taken out of the
American lifestyle all together because of the uncertainty surrounding them.
Paul Barrett offers his perspective in, Gun Control and the Constitution: Should
We Amend the Second Amendment? Like the title suggests, there is much debate over
the Second Amendment. No one seems to have the definite understanding of it, as though
it was written with the intent of be interpreted in many ways. The interest groups further

muddy the water by trying to convince the public of different ways to go about
representing this Amendment than the truth wants. With so much surrounding it, should
the gun even be valid anymore as an American right? Barrett offers five words that could
change everything. His adage to the Second Amendment is the use through when
serving in the militia. This would justify the use of guns, but in an enforcement program
for civilian protection, not personal use. It is ironic how one of the essential rights as an
American has so much confusion and misunderstanding surrounding it.
Miscommunication and confusion are reasons why gun control should be pursued, but
there are those who are convinced it would cause more harm than good.
Although it seems we are in a time that calls for action, many see gun control in a
different light. The impact of an incident can be entirely different depending on whether
or not measures were taken in the prevention of it. One party does the deed while there
can be a second party ready to stop them. The full impact of an incident is not known if
measures are not taken. Protection is intervention (How Gun Control Kills, Jack
Hunter). Charles C.W. Cookes Gun Control Dishonesty, an article for the National
Review, furthers the argument. The limiting and or preventing of gun allowance will not
stop violence, many argue. It is true, there is no way to be 100 per cent sure it would
prevent violence because there are already so many guns out there in the world. Going
back to a point mentioned before, there is much media attention surrounding this debate,
but the only way most people act upon it is by doing nothing and continuing with the
usual.
Guns are favorable as a way of protection, but do they really protect us? While it
does seem to be an indicator of security and confidence to be armed, guns do cause harm.

Not every user is bound to go on a genocidal spree. At the same time, the results of
possessing a gun are impossible to predict. There is too much uncertainty surrounding the
weapon. It is an uncertainty people should not look into. Simply holding a gun may end
with an accidental pull of the trigger. It is too hard at the moment to tell whether or not
we will ever get rid of the gun, but if we could, it would most likely be for the best.
The incorrect understanding and undesirable passed answers in favor for stricter
gun regulations. There is heavy misunderstanding and confusion surrounding the Second
Amendment. So much so Congress and the people do not know its full meaning. Talk and
publication of gun violence introduce motivation for more guns, a desire to seek
unorthodox retribution, and the opposition to those who want to help. Guns offer security
and comfort, but have multiple capabilities, for good and bad. It is the actions of the
wielder that decide the outcome. The answer is not simply to get rid of the gun, but to
determine who should have one.

End