Response to the NRA and my thoughts on "Gun Control"

While they do make a good point about fixing our mental health system, I don't think this provides a good enough of a basis for not implementing universal background checks. Even though they claim that the tragedies in Newton and Aurora could not have been prevented if background checks had been implemented, what about all of the cases in which violent criminals/or mentally unstable people legally purchase guns? Back home,a man murdered a bartender in her own home with a concealed pistol -- he did not have any prior violent offenses. Even with that said, he did not sound very mentally stable. If mental health checks of individuals were mandated prior to buying a gun, which could be enforced/included with background checks, that might reduce the levels of gun violence. There is no single solution for this problem.

To all who say that criminals don't obey laws, and that background checks (as well as any other gun laws)will only affect the law-abiding citizens, I will just say this. Using this logic, any laws that are implemented will only be obeyed by "good" citizens, so therefore, are not effective about preventing the very behaviors that the law was created in order to prevent. Under certain circumstances, I can definitely see this as being the case. Marijuana, for example, has been under prohibition, but has that stopped the use of it? Not at all. An all-out ban probably won't solve the gun issue, but regulations would surely help reduce the problem -- background checks, increased penalties on crimes involving guns (especially assault weapons), mental health checks, etc.

As for a ban on assault weapons,my argument for people saying that they need one for self-defense is simple.What average criminal is going to rob you or your house with an M16 or AK47? Considering the harsher penalties imposed upon criminals who use assault weapons vs. those who use non-assault weapons, I highly doubt that you will be robbed by someone carrying one. Or to those saying that you need it to defend yourself against a group of robbers, again, most robberies or muggings are going to consist of just a few people -- it wouldn't logically make sense to mug someone, or their house, with a big group of people; more chance to get caught, and less spoils to divide among each other. So, the only time that I see you being mugged, or attacked, against someone (or many individuals) carrying assault weapons is if you happen to be; a member of a gang, involved in some black-ops type operations, or just angered someone very powerful.

With all of this said, I believe that an all-of-the-above approach would be best suited to deal with this issue. Logical and ethical solutions should be implemented. Public safety/well-being should take precedent over individual joy/happiness when using an assault weapon. In reality, I feel like the NRA and many so-called 2nd Amendment supporters are more upset over the potential loss of fun involved with shootings these types of guns rather than their actual concern over self-defense -- no one is suggesting that pistols, shotguns, or rifles be banned; all of which are sufficiently suited to defend an individual against the vast majority of gun-toting/non-armed criminals. I am glad that mental health is beginning to be addressed again. Remember, Reagan was the one that heavily cut mental health programs in the 80s. Ironically, he was a patron saint of the NRA. Now the NRA is the one pushing to return these very programs.

-Daryl Simons Jr.