One of the more pressing political issues lately has reared its ugly head in the wake of the recent school shootings. It is very clear in every aspect of the concern that future gun restrictions are absolutely necessary for the safety and well-being of America’s children and citizens.
Although it may be argued that everyone should not suffer for the actions of the very small minority, the gun restrictions currently being discussed will do no such thing to the public of the nation. If everyone were required to go through a background check, which would include and medical history and similar routine exams, then anyone who cleared those tests (along with close family) and wanted a gun could buy one.
While the process of purchasing a gun might become more lengthy and aggravating, I would argue that it really isn’t too much to ask in order to keep these guns out of the reach of mentally unstable citizens.
Although it is the right of the people to be able to defend themselves, there are other means of personal defense when a citizen or members of his related family fail to pass the background checks. It’s just a preventative measure that’s becoming more and more of a necessity as people turn their guns (whether legally owned or not) on unsuspecting, innocent victims.
What’s more is that the security checks on gun purchases would do nothing to advance guns into the black market. Although those citizens who don’t pass the checks may feel the need to resort to other methods of purchase, the government can eliminate such activity if it monitors all gun sales in the U.S. If the salespeople in the black market don’t obtain quantities of guns, they can’t be sold there.
More importantly, I think we would rather force the sales of deadly weaponry to have to pass through the underground market than be open to the public. Even if their sales were to rise in the black market after restrictions are in place, it’s a better message than openly inviting sociopaths into unrestricted methods of violent havoc.
Finally, my opponent will also argue that the guns being restricted have other uses which will be prohibited by such laws. In considering the issue, I do believe that assault rifles and military-style guns are unnecessary for recreational hunting or basic personal protection. The use or sale of those guns should be outlawed altogether, as they seem to be the most common kinds of guns to crop up in the aftermath of these human slaughters. Then we can discuss the effect of the new implications on dad’s ability to bring home fresh deer, which, again, seems a little bit less important than the protection of innocent lives.
All in all, the restrictions being considered by the government are for the better, no matter what anyone argues. If you don’t believe any of this, then anyone can at least agree that such horror as the Sandy Hook incident must be prevented from re-occurring, or the government fails at its most basic job: to protect the American public.