Jessica Badia Professor Anne Kretsinger-Harries CAS 138T 1 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 governments 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 Obamas 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 arent 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 FBIs 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 Obamas 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 hardhitting 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 childs 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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, armorpiercing 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 Obamas 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 didnt. This shows that the current laws are clearly not strict enough and are not working properly, because those who should have been checked werent, and those who didnt need to be checked should be required to get checked anywhere. President Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 everyones eyes, because while some people would prefer for all guns to be banned, others would say that Obama shouldnt 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

anyones 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, isnt it at least a little bit reasonable? The main opposition to the Presidents plan comes from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA. The NRA has argued that President Obamas 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 Obamas 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 dont 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 Iand many othersdo 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 Ive 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-gunlaws.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-ageneration.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-daygun-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>