Control On or Off?

Unless you have been under a rock as a self-sufficient amoeba for the past several years (or don't live in America), you would have at least heard the term "gun control" once within that time span. Whether it came from someone for gun control, against it, or merely heard of the national walkout that happened because of a recent shooting in Florida, you would be able to tell that it is quite a hotly-debated topic throughout the United States. The main reason for these talks is in light of the amount of mass shootings there have been in the United States since the Columbine Massacre in 1999, particularly similar to the massacre in that many of the shootings have happened at elementary, middle, and high schools all throughout the country. However, even with a stacking death toll, people from any perspective on the issue have yet to fully and effectively react to the reoccurring incidents.

There are many sides to the issue of gun control, as there are with anything involving citizen rights. One side of the argument wishes to ban guns outright in the United States, with an argument consisting of phrases like "People do not need access to their own guns if police and national guard forces have the job of protecting the citizens." This side of the argument seems rather unpopular, since many realize that police and national guard are often too few to respond to every small occurrence and situation that happens within any major center of population in a timely manner. This is most definitely not a positive attribute, especially in situations where time is of the essence to have a desired outcome through police forces. This side also has the ridiculous notion that "Guns kill people". While there is truth to the phrase, the context they use it is rather perverse in a sense that they do not see the person behind the firearm doing the killing, but the gun itself as if it were some sentient being of its own. This only ends up adding to the reasons why this side is found to be unpopular with many.

Another side of the argument on gun control hold the notion that the civilian population deserves to have access to all guns ever to be made by human beings in order to be compliant with their second amendment rights in the United States Constitution. This side also believes in the timely delivery of guns and that everyone has a right to them, meaning no background checks should be required. This side has support from a fairly large group of people and organizations, such as the NRA and even some Republican-aligned politicians. 

The final well-known and recognized side of this debate is the one I personally find to be the most able to settle the issue with compromise and justice. This side advocates that the civilian population does, in fact, deserve to own firearms. However, before receiving them they should be subject to a background check (to see if they have a criminal record or a mental health issue) and a relatively long wait period after purchase (such as 2 weeks to a month). I find this to be the most reasonable side to find a compromise with since it would lower gun accessibility for potential murderers while also allowing unsuspicious persons to own guns that they may use within appropriate reason. In other words the entire basis of their argument is the compromise that would settle the debate and appease the majority of both sides.