Knobloch 1

Shawn Knobloch

Aughenbaugh

English 12

Feb. 6, 2017

An Assault on Rifles

Our hearts are broken again. The question is, do we care enough? (Obama). This was

taken from a speech by former president Barack Obama in response to a shooting in Washington

D.C. The man has a point. The United States suffers around 30,000 gun related deaths every

year. 12,000 of which, are homicides (Winnipeg Free Press). That's nearly half. Yet with all this

death and suffering, nothing happens. No laws or common decency come out of these tragic

events, and its firmly established why. The second amendment which, in theory, is a wonderful

idea. Guaranteeing every citizen the right to own a gun was a great idea then. But with the

expanding variety of guns, and the dramatic increase of destructive potential, people begin to

wonder if, perhaps, the second amendment should be revisited. Not removed or eliminated, but

modified. Assault rifles were created with the intention of being used to take the lives of other

humans and are a blight on civilian life. They serve us no purpose, as civilians, other than to

make us feel powerful. However, there is a reason that the U.S. has the highest gun related death

count of any first world country. There are those out there who would use these weapons to hurt

innocent people. These weapons are a disease And like any other disease, the best way to cure it,

is to prevent it from taking root to begin with. How? We remove assault rifles from the public

and enact mild to moderate gun laws in America for mental background checks and gun

registration.
 Knobloch 2

For every 100 American citizens, there are approximately 89 guns (ProCon.org). That

adds to well over 270,000,000 guns. That's more guns than there are people living in most

countries on Earth. As stated earlier, there are about 30,000 deaths annually that are caused by

firearms. Over 80 shootings a day in the country over the last year. Between 1999 and 2013,

there were over 464,000 deaths by gun (ProCon.org). Doing the math would find that to be over

33,000 per year, and 90 per day. The idea of having to quantify the number of deaths is truly

embarrassing. It shows the true barbarism of the greatest country in the world. How can we

call ourselves a civilized society if we end up killing nearly half a million of our neighbors and

fellow americans every decade? Guns are the number one method of both homicide AND suicide

respectively. They are also the 12th leading cause of death overall in America (ProCon.org). The

United States has more guns than any other nation on this planet. It also has the most gun

violence of any first world country, not the whole world, but close. Looking at both these facts,

there is a certain common theme. Guns. Anyone with eyes can see the correlation between the

number of guns and the number of shootings. With guns and death being so closely intertwined,

it stands to reason that if you reduce the number of guns in the country, the number of deaths will

see a relatively equal decline.

On December 14 of 2012, a man walked into an elementary school in Newtown

Connecticut. The man proceeded to produce a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle, and cut down 20

children between six and seven years old as well as six of the staff, who attempted to shield the

kids (Jonsson). He would go on to then kill himself and it had been discovered that he had killed

his own mother earlier that day. His assault rifle was acquired legally. Or earlier that same year,

on July 20th. A man walked into a movie theatre and murdered 12 people. He also put over 50

others in the hospital (Morse). Innocent people, who were only there to watch Batman with their
 Knobloch 3

friends. The shooter used an assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine, again, obtained

legally (morse). Over the last 30 years, there have been over 60 mass shootings (Winnipeg Free

Press). The vast majority of which, were committed using assault rifles. That is unacceptable.

But again, it is impossible to remedy the problem due to the interference of corrupt politicians

and short sighted gun advocates. Those who refuse to compromise even in the face of someone

whose child was killed as a result of their beloved rifles falling into the hands of a man who

should never have even been considered as worthy to own one. Yet, for some unexplained

reason, most guns used in shootings like the ones above were obtained completely legally. No

training, no tests, no questions asked. They walk in, order a gun like you would a pizza at

Dominos and walk out the most dangerous person in their area. The result, loss of life on a scale

never imagined by the men who wrote the 2nd amendment.

The funny part about all of this is that new gun control bills are introduced every day. But

very few of them ever even come close to becoming a law. Most of them are shot down before

they had a chance. President Obama has tried on numerous occasions to put through some kind

of control. One such bill made it all the way to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, it was turned

away. Interestingly enough, out of the 45 senators to vote against the bill, 42 of them were found

to have accepted money from pro gun donors (Dominion Post). 42 of our national Senators,

people we chose as leaders, rejected a bill that could save lives because a few pro gun people

payed them to. They did this despite 90% of voters wanting some form of gun control passed

(Dominion Post). They voted against the bill despite all the studies out there estimating that

applying federal background checks to gun purchases could cut down the number of deaths by

up to 57% (ProCon.org). Others say that giving each gun an ID number could decrease the

number of deaths even further. Or even simple things like reporting a stolen gun as stolen.
 Knobloch 4

Sounds like common sense right? That's because it is. But still, there are people who would

refuse to accept a law like that simply out of principle that it could lead to further gun control.

Mike Siegel from Boston University conducted a study once. The results showed that the more

guns there are in any one area, the more homicides there will be in that area (The Strength to

Care). Again, common sense right? But when guns are involved, the argument becomes anything

but sensible.

The most infuriating part of the whole gun control issue are the bad arguments and

blatant lies that come from both sides. But some of the more baseless arguments come from pro

gun advocates. Often the go to argument, they will say that owning a gun is a Constitutional

right, and it is (Dolan). But it also states that the purpose of those guns is to form a militia to

fight on the peoples behalf. Ironically, it is also stated in the constitution that to take up arms

against the government is a crime called treason (OLeary). Once upon a time, there WAS a

rebellion in America. It was called the Shays Whiskey Rebellion. This rebellion gave the

government quite a scare. It particularly scared a man by the name of George Washington, who is

quoted as saying that all citizens should own a gun. This was a misquotation( OLeary). And

even then, does anyone actually believe that a citizen uprising would work? Because it wouldnt.

No matter how many assault rifles we keep around, the government has access to things like

drones and weapons of mass destruction, there is absolutely zero chance of success. When the

founding fathers were creating this country, there wasnt really an organized army. Every male

citizen was also a soldier and that's why they needed to let them keep their own guns. That's also

why an armed uprising would work back then, all the people who were expected to put down the

rebellion were PART of it. But now there is an organized military, the best in the world in fact.

Which pretty much shuts down any chance of a violent protest. Others will say that regulation
 Knobloch 5

will inevitably lead to confiscation (OLeary). Well again, once upon a time, back in the colonial

days, they held gun censuses. Even 200 years ago, people had the sense to be tracking guns in

case someone had an itchy trigger finger. Another argument is that gun control wont work

(Stephanie). But what would make you say that? How would these criminals acquire their guns?

The black market, where everything costs exponentially more than they would otherwise? If you

have enough money to buy weapons and ammo off the black market, then there's no reason for

you to use those weapons to rob people because you already have enough money to get by. And

in the case of the mentally ill, no ones just going to hand you an assault rifle and not ask some

questions. Questions that, upon hearing the answer, would cause some well-earned suspicion.

But the question still remains, would gun control work? Well, you MAY be right, it may not

work, but its impossible to know for sure until we try right? But it has worked in other countries.

Australia used to have similar gun rights to ours, but then the largest mass shooting in history

happened. The government took the guns away and, lo and behold, there hasnt been a single

mass shooting since. Maybe it was a coincidence? Probably not. Its also worked in England.

People don't shoot each other in the U.K. Even the police don't get guns and, unsurprisingly,

police violence there isn't as high as it is here. Another popular argument is that if people have

their guns, they will be more likely to protect themselves (Stephanie). Well, under our current

system, where we have our guns, its already established that they don't. Only one out of every

36 of those who are attacked actually use a weapon to defend themselves (ProCon.org). And for

good reason too. In every situation, the shooter has the advantage. No one knows there will be a

shooting beforehand other than the guy who commences the shooting. That's already check mate.

If you stand up all heroic pulling out your gun, guess who just became number one target. The

shooter is the one more prepared and already has the gun ready, which is no way to start a
 Knobloch 6

gunfight if you're the other guy. A perfect example comes from a shooting in Paris. After the

shooting, in which two men walked into a building and shot several cartoonists, a pro gun group

from Texas believed that if the cartoonists had been armed, things would have ended differently

and decided to run a simulation. In the simulation, people were put in a room at desks and two

men would come in and shoot paint pellets from a fully automatic paintball gun to represent the

attackers. However, in the real shooting, none of the employees were armed. But in the

simulation, one of them was armed with a handgun (obviously loaded with paint pellets). When

it was all said and done, the employee was only able to take one of the men down before being

cut down by the other and failed to change the outcome at all (Pavia). The group then released a

statement saying that, Weve previously proven that in some cases armed defenders are nearly

100% effective at stopping similarly armed attackers. (Leghorn) Now there are two parts of this

statement that you need to pay attention to. First, isn't it odd that as soon as his theory is proven

wrong, he takes that kindergarten stance of weve done it before and got it right. The other part

is that he says people will defend themselves against SIMILARLY armed attackers. Keep in

mind that most mass shootings are carried out with assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

Reason states that there are two ways to stop things like this from happening then. Either we give

EVERYONE assault rifles (bad idea), or we remove assault rifles from the public all together.

The problem with the former option is that if you give someone a gun, the will either use it, or

not use it. Either way it goes down, it wont end well. If they use it, its for a sick, twisted

purpose. If they dont, they have no way to defend themselves. So the only other option is to take

away assault rifles.

People have such a blind mistrust of both the government and even other normal people

that it often turns them away from reason. They believe that there's always someone out to get
 Knobloch 7

them, or their families, or to take away their rights. This mistrust is the source of our fondness

towards guns. They make people feel powerful. But there are always people who would misuse

their perceived power. All the pro-gun control people want is to help keep guns out of the hands

of people who shouldn't have them. Those people who would use them to hurt others. And they

want to do this through mental health regulation and registering gun purchases. The only thing

pro gun control people want to ban outright is assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No

one wants your handguns.No one is out to get your shotguns and hunting rifles. But having

assault weapons, whose very name indicates that they are intended to be used against other

people, scattered among the civilian population is an unnecessary evil. The more there are of

them out there, the better the chances are that someone will use it for the very purpose for which

it was created.

Works Cited

Biddle, RiShawn. "Gun Spree." Reason 31.5 (1999): 13. MasterFILE Main Edition. Web.

12 Jan. 2017.

Collins, Michael. "Cohen denounces tweets from pro-gun 'nuts' after House sit-in ends."

Commercial Appeal, The (Memphis, TN) 23 June 2016: Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 11

Jan. 2017.
 Knobloch 8

Crowe, Melissa. "BRIEF: Pro/Con: Gun control introduction." Victoria Advocate (TX) 20

Aug. 2012: Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 11 Jan. 2017.

"Culture of fear shoots down reform." Dominion Post, The 22 Apr. 2013: A8. Newspaper

Source Plus. Web. 13 Jan. 2017.

Dolan, Edward Jr. Gun Control A Decision for Americans. Impact. 1982. Print. 19 Jan.

2017.

Editorial. "Prevention is the only true cure." Winnipeg Free Press (MB) 18 Dec. 2012:

A10. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.

Jonsson, Patrik. "Pro-gun America quiet, contemplative in wake of Sandy Hook

massacre." Christian Science Monitor 16 Dec. 2012: N.PAG. Middle Search Main Edition. Web.

10 Jan. 2017.

MICHAEL, RUBINKAM. "Top US Pro-Gun Group Sues Pennsylvania Cities Over Gun

Control Measures." Canadian Press, The (n.d.): Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 12 Jan. 2017.

Morse, John. "Rampage. Regret. Repeat." Newsweek Global 161.33 (2013): 1.

MasterFILE Main Edition. Web. 11 Jan. 2017.

Nick O'Malley - Nick O'Malley is United States, correspondent. "A nation torn apart by

gunfire." Sunday Age, The (Melbourne) 15 Dec. 2013: 21. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 17 Jan.

2017.

O'Leary, Mary E. "2nd Amendment expert debunks 'ridiculous' pro-gun interpretations in

Newtown." New Haven Register (CT) 17 Apr. 2013: Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 13 Jan. 2017.

ProCon.org. "Gun Control ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 28 June 2016, 2:49 p.m., gun-

control.procon.org/
 Knobloch 9

STEFANIE, BALOGH. "Deaths Bring A Pro-Gun Call To Arms." Advertiser, The

(Adelaide) (n.d.): Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.

"The Strength to Care." America 14 Oct. 2013: 5. Academic Search Main Edition. Web.

17 Jan. 2017.

Will, Pavia. "Texans Wargame Charlie Massacre." Times, The (United Kingdom) (2015):

38. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 12 Jan. 2017.