Guns have had, and continue to have, an effect on American citizens. Given numerous recent events involving violence, the process of obtaining and possessing firearms needs to be taken into consideration. A major debate on the topic revolves around requiring a background check before the purchase of a gun. As of right now, a background check is required before purchasing a firearm. Are these background checks effective in preventing gun violence? Background checks should not only remain in place before the sale of a firearm but also become stricter. Every day in America renting an apartment, applying for a job, or even borrowing money usually involves running a quick background check. Should these backgrounds checks be stricter when putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of a human being? Mental illness does not appear on current background checks. Pollitt makes the remark that, “… you have to be mentally ill to commit mass murder …” (484) It’s possible if a mental illness would have been included in a background check, recent shootings may not have been able to take place. Stephen Paddock of the Las Vegas shooting was mentally ill and bought several guns himself. Like Dvorak mentions in her column for the Washington Post, “The group calls for clear standards and stronger compliance for reporting mental health issues to the National …show more content…
As Pollitt says in The Nation, “… without a gun, it’s difficult to kill and injure a whole crowd of people, no matter how much you’d like to” (484.) Background checks are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of people who will do harm with them. Background checks should not be limited to stores. More should be included as well on the background checks being done. There is no reason they should not also be used in purchasing arsenal. Law-abiding, responsible gun owners can continue to purchase firearms, exercising their