Don't take my guns, Mr. President

With all the shootings that have made the national news lately, it is easy to see why people are so uptight when it comes to the issue of banning firearms. Guns are very common and widespread throughout the United States. Some people have them for hunting, some for protection and others have fun at shooting competitions.

According to Madeline Morgenstern at theblaze.com, there are 270 million firearms owned in the United States, which equates to 89 firearms for every 100 people. With all these firearms being owned, the number of shootings is vastly outnumbered. So with all these different types of owners, does it really mean that guns are to blame in all these shootings, or should that blame be directed elsewhere?

Guns themselves cause no harm whatsoever. Guns have to be manipulated by a person in order to fire. Being a gun owner myself, I have come across many different types of gun owners. Out of all the ones I know and have met, I don’t believe any of them to be dangerous enough to not trust them with a firearm. A ban is going to affect law-abiding gun owners. These people should not have to suffer at the expense of those who cannot do the right thing.

So, should firearms be banned or should we take a deeper look at the people who are allowed to own them? Or for that matter, sell them? I think we should have a deeper look at those who are allowed to own firearms, as well as be around them in general. You could have a perfectly safe gun owner who follows every law exactly the way it should be followed, then have someone come along, steal their guns, and use them in some type of criminal act.

Let’s examine the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. All firearms used during this horrid and unforgettable day were not actually owned by the shooter, but the shooter’s parent. The same situation occurred during the shooting at Columbine High School. There are a lot of illegally acquired guns from pawn shops and guns shops.

The majority of places that sell firearms follow the correct procedures when selling to customers, but there seems to be a select few that will take the extra cash at the expense of possibly selling a gun that will be used in a crime of some sort. What the government should do is take a look at these scenarios, and do something about it rather than just getting rid of guns all together. They should take a closer look at a family’s background of mental health, versus just the owner of the firearm. While it would take more time to complete, it would be more logical than taking all guns completely.

Another issue is the second amendment. Owning firearms is a constitutional right and going against it is considered treason. Who in their right mind would want to be a part of that? The expense of the extra man power to confiscate all firearms would cause more money issues, and then they are guaranteed to run into those that will “die before they give up their guns.”

I foresee many more problems coming out of a total gun ban than just readjusting the process of owning a firearm and being around one. Take a look around; I am sure many of you reading this either own a gun, have shot one, or at the very least know someone who does. So next time you hear about a gun ban, think to yourself, “Is it really the best option?”

-Kory Rose, 27, lives in Midland, MI. He is a Delta College who believes the world is genuinely a good place. He is an Army veteran.