In recent years, the number of mass shootings in the United States has skyrocketed. We have seen heinous events such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School or the most recent one in San Bernardino, California. As the issues continue to rise, the United States is posed with one serious concern- how to stop and prevent future mass shootings from happening. There seems to be three sides to this issue. On one hand, there are citizens who believe that guns are unsafe for the average citizen and should be mandated carefully by members of law enforcement or higher authority. People on the other end of the spectrum believe that more citizens should carry guns and that their solution would discourage shooters from preying on large groups of people. If each of the two sides met at a mid-point in their …show more content…
This includes making it more difficult to buy guns, and “eliminating loopholes” in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Smith 2). They believe that less guns equally correlates with less gun deaths. For example, Patricia Smith states that, “Advocates say that tougher gun laws in other countries keep deaths down there. Australia, for example, had 13 mass shootings between 1979 and 1996. But after a gunman killed 35 people in 1996, the country passed strict laws banning many weapons. It hasn't had a mass shooting since”(1). However, just because banning some types of guns works in other parts of the world, it may not in the United States. Another reason putting restrictions on weapons may not work is that it might take guns out of the hands of the wrong people, such as law-abiding citizens. Remember, the United States has much more guns already in circulation than any other place on the globe. For a solution to the issue, gun control activists should strive for better relationships with gun rights activists and push for better surveillance on potential terrorists and