Photo taken by unknown source
duPont Manual High School

Gun control in the United States– When will we learn?

Around 2 a.m. local time on June 12, 50 people were killed and many others were injured from a hate crime at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Pulse Nightclub is known for being a “gay club,” and the shooter was described as going into the shooting with having a history of anger issues.

The shooter, Omar Mateen, entered the nightclub with an AR-15 type rifle and a handgun. He was able to do this because the gun laws in Florida authorize that you do not need an owner license, state license, and a background check for private sales. Although, in Florida, you are not allowed to openly carry long guns and handguns.

This event has provoked many opinions from people from all over the world. Many of these people have shared their views on social media.

“I just can’t understand why guns are still a thing. How many more people have to die before we realise that guns are the problem,” tweeted Will Darbyshire, a British YouTuber.

“Target groups (non-white, non-cis, non-straight) should not be endangered because the country’s too scared to enforce gun laws,” tweeted Deirdre Welch, a Louisville, Kent. sophomore at duPont Manual High School. Deirdre then went on to compare the United Kingdom’s gun laws and people to the United States’.

“The straights in the U.K. don’t kill everyone cause there’s gun control,” she tweeted.

In countries where there is gun control, like the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and Australia, there is a smaller amount of homicides. These countries have been called by Jim Young, as “more advanced.” The United Kingdom’s gun control policy states that all handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles are prohibited. With their restrictions, they have the lowest rate of gun related homicides in the world.

As a student who has grown up in the United States, I am one of many who supports a stricter gun control law system. The main argument that is used by citizens against gun control is that the guns are used for “self defense.” This may be true, but the guns would not be needed if there was a better restriction process against the use of guns all together. There would not be as many homicides as there are now if the United State’s gun laws were tighter and more restrictive.

Many people have used phrases like “how many more people have to die for the U.S. to realize” on Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. I agree. This needs to stop now before anyone else has to suffer from the loss of a loved one because of a gun related accident or crime.


  • Reply Crunch Connors (@CrunchConnors) June 13, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    When will we learn that guns are not the problem? Gun control laws will only work if criminals actually obey those laws. Until then, they will only hurt legal gun owners, putting them at risk to the criminals who will be armed by them (and with easy access to them). It’s easy (for Liberals especially) to point fingers at an object (that has no voice) than really point at the real problem (people who have mental problems, using their Muslim religion as an excuse for terrorism) because it’s easy. Gun control laws just won’t work, period. If Omar Mateen didn’t have guns, then he will use explosives. Terrorists will find a way to kill.


  • Reply Rob June 13, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    Guns are necessary for controlling the animal population, which would completely skyrocket because of our mistake of elimating predators in ecosystems, allowing animals like deer to skyrocket in number. If we didn’t have hunting seasons, the number of deer related crashes would raise by unthinkable numbers. However, I don’t see the reason for citizens to own anything besides a handgun for hunting. Guns don’t need restrictions; the people that own the guns need to have greater security and psychological tests before they’re allowed to legally own one.


  • Reply Areu Kidding June 13, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    When, if ever, has an AR type rifle ever used ( or needed) in self defense?


    • Reply Robert Hallman Jr June 14, 2016 at 8:22 pm

      Los Angeles riots when some business owners were able to prevent looters from destroying and robbing their business is one case that comes to mind.


  • Reply Edward Inman June 13, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    The shooter, a) purchased his guns legally, b) had security license’s, c) passed a federal background check. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.


  • Reply Rick Rodriguez June 13, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    If the murderer in this case had simply left a car bomb near the route of a gay pride parade. And had succeeded in killing 100 or more people and injuring who knows how many more people, would you then admit it was an act of terrorism? Look at what 2 young men did with pressure cookers at the Boston marathon, another act of terrorism.


  • Reply Ken June 14, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    I stand behind you in line at the store with a smile on my face…and a gun responsibly in my possession and you are none the wiser, yet you are safer for having me next to you. I won’t shoot you. My gun won’t pull it’s own trigger. It is securely holstered with the trigger covered. It can’t just go off. However, rest assured that if a lunatic walks into the grocery store and pulls out a rifle, I will draw my pistol and protect myself and my family and therefore protect you and your family. I may get shot before I can pull the trigger…but, I won’t die in a helpless blubbering heap on the floor begging for my life or my child’s life. No, if I die it will be in a pile of spent shell casings. I won’t be that victim. I choose not to be. As for you, I don’t ask you to carry a gun. If you are not comfortable, then please don’t. But I would like to keep my right to choose to not be a helpless victim. There is EVIL in this world, and if evil has a gun, I want one too…


  • Reply bill June 15, 2016 at 4:30 am

    Ken, very well stated.. When are the libs going to understand, they can spout all the fake stats they want but the fact is that strict gun laws kill more people than no gun laws. 9/11 TERRORISTS flew 2 planes into the twin towers, and 1 into the pentagon (who knows for sure where the 4th was headed before the brave souls on board took matters into their own hands) killing thousands (3000 in the towers alone I believe!). Not one person screamed ban planes! Why? Because, planes are not the “in” thing to protest.. guns are.
    Facts are facts, the guns didn’t shoot anyone, the TERRORIST did, if he didn’t have guns he’d use a bomb ,no bomb, a car, no car a plane.


  • Reply brad June 15, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Madelyn – you seem like a nice and thoughtful young lady, but some additional research on the second amendment would be in order. The reason the 2a is there and put there by the founders wasn’t for hunting or sport shooting. It was for self defense, and specifically to have gun ownership widespread enough to form up a militia to put down a tyrannical government (ours or any other). THe term “arms” means the weapons an infantry soldier would need. Not nukes, planes, bazookas etc. Small arms and the associated munitions. So, the fact that 350 people/year are killed by rifles (that’s less than 1 in a million US citizens) gets all sorts of media attention and causes the uninformed to ask lots of questions, a simple history lesson is all that’s required for understanding (read the Federalist Papers if you want more details).

    The constitution has a mechanism to change the second amendment, but that’s a really high bar. THe FF knew that an historical prerequisite to genocide was an unarmed populace. That remains true. See the Jews in WW2, Cambodians, Soviets, and on and on. Wont’ happen in the US so long as the people can push back.

    If you want to see what it’s like when only the police and military are armed, watch Schindler’s List..


  • Reply Deirdre Welch March 22, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    It is quite hard to believe what I once said in (now deleted) tweets. My political view has changed rather drastically since I have come back to my senses after having been brainwashed my my neo-liberal surroundings. I am now most closely aligned with classical liberalism and cower at the fact that I once felt so obligated to share this view, an actually factually incorrect view considering the perpetrator was revealed to be gay himself. While I do continue to sympathize with victims, I believe there would be little harm in the slight security increase for firearm distribution, though it would likely do little good to considering all the guns in circulation. Not to direct all of the blame off myself, though I am truly embarrassed by the social justice warrior comment I made about the “straights” killing eveyone. What a shame, Deirdre Welch.


  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s