Why Gun Control Laws need reform

Edward Zhang, Eastside Staff

In New Jersey, 2.8 people are killed in every 100,000 inhabitants and 349 gun murders have happened in 2010. Making New Jersey the 15th most likely place to die from gun violence in the entire United States. Nearly 300 million guns are in the U.S since January 2016 according to the Congressional Research Center, and nearly 31% of every American household owns at least one firearm; that means about one in every three people you see is an owner of a firearm. Since the mid-1970s, the percentage of American households with firearms has dropped by 20% according to the General Social Survey, a direct result of what is called gun control reform.

However, given the data, many people argue that gun control reform is a bad idea and use all their power to oppress it, such as the NRA (National Rifle Association). Their most commonly used argument is: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun,” says the NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. But a recent study by the National Gun Victims Action Council showed that a good guy with a gun that does not have advanced training will be much more likely to do harm than good.

After the Orlando shootings, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA said in a short article against guns control reform: “Radical Islamic terrorists are not deterred by gun control laws” and “It’s time for us… radical Islam… hate crime waiting to happen… only way to defeat them is to destroy them — not destroy the right of law-abiding Americans to defend ourselves.” But to contradict his claim, the only reason gun control laws were made was to prevent terrorists from getting guns and monitoring their use of firearms in order to reduce the amount of gun homicides.

Another commonly used argument found in almost every NRA debate is the fact that guns are just tools like swords or knives; the real problem is the bad guys who use the guns.

Though theoretically speaking it is true, but when logically speaking it is completely false. The greatest flaw of this argument is the fact that guns are way deadlier than swords, knives, axes, bladed weapons, etc. A bladed weapon only cuts a person and it is a very slim chance that that person will die immediately unless if a very fatal part is hit, the person is weak in health, or if the person bleeds out due to a strike to a very fatal artery in which the chances are exceedingly low. However, even a small bullet will cause instant death and even being saved will leave a hollow cavity in the entrance wound, making it more likely the person may die earlier.

Thus, an armed civilian NOT be able to prevent a crime and only make it worse; is prevented by gun control laws and suspected terrorists with guns are monitored; and guns are way deadlier for terrorist attacks than their lesser used counterparts such as knives and swords. These flimsy NRA arguments against gun control reform clearly show that there is no legitimate and logical reason to prevent gun control laws.