The student news site of Grand Center Arts Academy, St. Louis, MO

GCAAtoday

New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

Natalie O'Dell, Staff Writer

A new law regarding gun control took effect at the beginning of this year.  This makes it so that you do not need a license or background check to buy a gun.  All you need is a criminal background check to purchase a deadly weapon.

Allowing people to own a gun without proper training and confirmation just breaks the laws of common sense, because you can easily kill someone with it, even accidentally. Missouri also ranks eleventh in crime, so this definitely has potential to make our bad situation worse. However, the crime rates of our own city are through the roof, consistently ranking in the top five list for most dangerous cities. A gun law that allows any adult to a gun will be very likely to make them even worse.

Guns can also be dangerous in the hands of not only criminals, but people who have no intentions of wrongdoing.  We are all humans, meaning we all make mistakes, but if that mistake is made with a deadly weapon, it can cost people’s lives.  When you do not have the proper training it is likely that you will make a mistake and accidentally shoot things you don’t want to shoot or even people.

Many say that you need a gun to defend yourself.  It seems like a reasonable argument, especially for those living in high crime areas.  However, it may not be as useful as it seems on paper. Considering that you take the proper precautions of keeping your gun in a safe and keeping it unloaded, if we are being realistic, in order to defend yourself you’ll have to act fast.  Therefore, you probably won’t need a gun in that situation.

Many people refer to this law as “constitutional carry”.  This refers to the second amendment, which conservatives use frequently to defend open carry.  However, this is not the case.  The second amendment of the United States actually states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that militias can bear arms, not individuals.  Many people use the last part of that amendment as an excuse for disregarding common sense gun safety laws.

Another argument frequently used is that people need guns for hunting.  As much as I don’t understand why killing innocent animals for recreation can be such a staple to people’s lives, I acknowledge that not everyone sees it from my perspective.  However, it still isn’t a valid argument, because the removal of this law wouldn’t stop them from hunting.  Most hunters have training.  Therefore, they could still rightfully own a gun without this new law.

Two similar arguments people often use is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and “guns are tools.  It depends on the person using it.” The first is true, but that still doesn’t mean that it is perfectly safe for everyone to have one, because without guns, it is much harder for a person to shoot someone.  Now you might think “well there still is the background check”.  That is true, and it is a good thing.  However, just because someone doesn’t have a criminal record, that doesn’t mean they won’t commit crimes in the future.  On to the second argument, guns are a tool, but, like it or not, they are tools for killing.  You can’t escape that fact.  As such, it only makes sense to put strict regulations on them.

This new law makes it all too easy for a gun to get in the wrong hands, whether that’s a criminal to-be or a person who wants to own a gun but doesn’t know how to properly use them will vary, but just because this is the law now doesn’t mean it will be forever.  If we continue to make our voices heard about this nonsense law, then perhaps, eventually, it will change.

Print Friendly

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






1 Comment

One Response to “New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous”

  1. Erik Boettcher on February 18th, 2017 7:39 pm

    I’d like to correct a few things in this article. “Constitutional carry”. Is a law that means you don’t have to go through a permitting process or pay the state to be able to carry a firearm in public places. That means holstered either openly or in easy to understand terms to be visible from 3 sides. Or to carry concealed which usually means tucked away not visible on ones person. This does not mean you can buy a gun without a “background” check or also known as a NICS check. The NICS check verifies you haven’t committed a felony and in most states a violent crime or have been involuntarily commuted as a mental health patient. The claim made in this article is about that topic is blatantly false.

    Next is if a firearm is stored in a safe and unloaded then you’d be correct that you wouldn’t need it in a home invasion since you’d likely be dead already if that is the invaders intent. I’m not going to get into a constitutional argument as that would be lost on deaf ears here. I will however point out that using that logic it should be illegal to own sharp objects or a car because it is just as easy if not easier to kill someone with those objects. Also you are inferring people are unable to take personal responsibility for their own safety and training. If you are unable or unwilling to go through at least some self trainging to prepare yourself for the chance that you may have to pull your handgun in self defense and accept those responsibilities then you shouldn’t carry in the first place. However it is not within your authority nor in my opinion the states authority to tell me I can’t have the best available means to defend myself.

    [Reply]

GCAA Student Media intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are reviewed and must be approved by a moderator to ensure that they meet these standards. Online comments are moderated by staff editors. Alerts will be sent to staff editors each time a comment is posted to the site. Online comments that are found in violation of the editorial policy will be removed as quickly as possible. GCAAtoday does not allow anonymous comments, and requires first and last names and a valid email address in order for comments to be published. The email address will not be displayed but may be used to confirm your comments.

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




Navigate Right
Navigate Left
  • New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

    Editorials

    Increased prices of Epipen leave families desperately searching for alternatives

  • New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

    Editorials

    High school principal interviews create gap in communication

  • New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

    Editorials

    Privilege and Oppression

  • New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

    Editorials

    Netflix VS. Hulu: My Personal Struggle

  • New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

    Editorials

    Valentine’s Day: A Corporate Holiday

  • Editorials

    A Feminist’s View of the School Dress Code

  • New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

    Editorials

    Hallway Madness: Frustration Results from Congestion in the Stairwells

  • Editorials

    Abused Phone Privileges

  • New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

    Editorials

    Pie Face Challenge: more than just a social media trend

  • New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous

    Editorials

    An Embarrassing History of Black History Month at GCAA

The student news site of Grand Center Arts Academy, St. Louis, MO
New Missouri Gun Law irrational, dangerous