“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The second amendment was written by a group of men who believed that governments and armies would turn on their own people, the same men who founded the United States of America. This amendment was there to guarantee that the government would work for the good of the people, and the people would not have to live in fear. The founding fathers knew that a defenseless population would result in their takeover. Adolf Hitler also knew that a defenseless population would not resist his rule. As a result, Hitler’s first move in power was to identify, disarm and attack his political opponents and the Jews. Why disarm them? Because now they would be helpless and unable to fight back. As a result, six million Jewish people perished during the Holocaust.

Some may argue that police are there to protect us and only they should have access to weapons. However, most officers will not get there in time in these life or death situations. The Columbine and Sandy Hook shootings are just two examples of massacres that ended with the suicide of the attacker before police could intervene. A study by the U.S. Secret Service on 37 school shootings even stated, “Over half of the attacks were resolved or ended before law enforcement responded to the scene. In these cases, the attacker was stopped by faculty or fellow students, decided to stop shooting on his own, or killed himself.” The only way that these shootings could have been stopped earlier would have been if students or teachers on campus had been permitted to concealed carry. This would have allowed them to fight back instead of waiting for someone else to protect them.

Most mass shootings occur where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Following the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act, multiple school shootings have still taken place. The intention was to make schools safer, but it just leaves the inhabitants defenseless against anyone who was to walk in and cause harm. The Cinemark movie theater from the Aurora, Colorado shooting is yet another example of a massacre location with a gun-free policy. These gun-free zones create sitting ducks in the eyes of these shooters.

It has been preached by many that more gun control would mean less crime. However, criminals do not follow laws, which is what makes them criminals. A Harvard study has even shown that as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide rates decrease. Criminologists Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser extensively studied American and European gun laws and violence rates and discovered that “nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not.” For example, Norway has the highest gun ownership in Europe, and the lowest murder rate, while Holland has nearly the worst murder rate, and the lowest gun ownership.

In 1997, Australia instituted a ban on guns. The idea behind it was that the ban would make society safer. However, the number of murders committed with a firearm was the highest in 2006 at 16.3 percent of all murders. In addition to that, assault rose 49.2 percent, robbery rose 6.2 percent, sexual assault rose 29.9 percent and violent crime rates rose 42.2 percent. Gun control is a flawed policy and therefore should not occur here in the United States as it will cause more harm than good. Gun control is not effective at preventing murder. It is, in fact, counterproductive and creates victims.

In light of recent events involving mass shootings, the topic of gun control has evolved into a more popular topic among civilian conversations and political debates. The need for more extensive legislation and regulation regarding gun control is more pressing than ever before.

Now, I am not suggesting that Democrats go prying Republicans’ precious guns out of their hands forevermore.  There are actually many rational ways to go about this. In order to maintain the highest order of safety possible in the US, it is critical that first and foremost, laws regarding gun control are standardized across the country, which can be achieved by making them into federal laws. Extensive background checking wouldn’t hurt either.

I hate to sound like the chanting pedestrian holding a sign saying “honk if you support,” but how many mass shootings will it take? How many innocent people need to die before we modify an outdated amendment?

As reported by Just Facts, 67 percent of murders committed in the US were at the barrel of a firearm in 2008 alone, and according to Mother Jones, in 75 percent of the 70 plus mass shootings in the United States in the last 30 years, the guns used were legally obtained. The number of lives taken in these tragedies is unfathomable. These startling statistics make Americans question their safety in a country that is known as one of the most stable in the world.

Just Facts has stated that Washington, D.C. City Council requires that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporarily inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. Only 0.5 percent of households legally owning firearms had members who actually used the gun for defense, while 67 percent of Americans claim to own one to protect themselves against crime. This is probably due to the fact that one: the chance that an opportunity will arise that they need to engage in self-defense is ever so slim, and two, due to the element of surprise during a blitz attack, people already need a moment to process what just happened, and then on top of that, the safety locks present on many modern guns don’t make it any easier to put the whole “defending” part of self-defense to use in a hurry. I don’t think anyone has ever thought that if fewer people are allowed to have guns, then there will be fewer attacks in the first place.

As for background checks, not only should they be extensively conducted on the purchasers of firearms, but on those living in the household where the firearm will be kept. In the case of the Sandy Hook tragedy in 2012, the gunman took 28 lives with guns registered not to him, but to his mother, whom he lived with. In this case, criminal history might not have appeared for the shooter, whereas red flags in a psychological evaluation would have. This is why I propose that the thorough analysis of criminal records as well as psychological evaluations should be conducted in order for one to purchase a gun. The harder it is to obtain a gun, and the safer the buyers are, the fewer mass shootings and deaths of children and adults alike.

Although self-defense is a completely valid reason to possess fire arms, the most pressing matter is safety for the country as a whole. Through standardized federal laws and more extensive checks and evaluations of the purchasers of firearms, the United States will be a safer place to live.