Clearly, there exists a divide in the debate over gun rights in the United States. We’ve all heard both sides of the argument, and if you’ve been following my blog, then you can surely understand why this issue is not as black and white as we’d like it to be. But, what use is it to understand the division alone? We must take the opposing arguments that we have heard from all sides of this issue and use them to move forward, into the realm of solution.
There is no happy medium when it comes to gun control. Probably not what you wanted to hear, right? Me either. But, unfortunately, it’s the truth. Something (or really someone) has got to give, and in my personal opinion, it starts with finding common ground.
As I’ve stated in earlier posts, both sides can agree that we have entered an era of increased unnecessary gun violence, and more prevalent gun ownership. The controversy arises when the discussion opens into how to combat this violence. Do we take the guns away? Make them harder to get? Allow people to retain their individual freedom to bear arms?
It must become harder to obtain a firearm in the United States. This is the ugly “compromise” of the gun control fight, but it’s the truth. There must come into play stricter rules on gun shows and more extensive background checks to make this a safer country to live in. Advocates of stricter gun control should support greater regulation, while allowing the possession of a firearm to those who meet the requirements. Meanwhile, proponents of less gun control must also make sacrifices, allowing potential gun-owners to jump through more hoops, so that we can maintain this instrumental individual freedom.