Gun laws should be more restrictive

On Wednesday, Feb. 14, a high school in Florida was shot up by 19 year old Nikolas Cruz, who killed 14 students and three teachers, and injuring at least a dozen others with an AR-15 assault rifle. Since the beginning of 2018, there have been about 34 mass shooting incidents.
Since all of this seems to be happening so frequently, gun control laws have been brought into question more than ever. The AR-15 rifle has been notoriously used in mass shooting because of how easy it is to use, and more disturbingly, how easy it is to obtain. In the state of Florida, to get access to an assault weapon like the AR-15 is easier than it is to get access to handguns, which are most commonly only used for self defense.
President Trump addressed the issue of mass shootings, however he only seemed interested in mentioning the mental health of the offenders, rather than the accessibility of the weapons themselves.
Personally, I’d blame both. While many people would argue that the second amendment is one that needs to be restricted or provoked, others would argue that even if guns were limited or banned, those intending to cause harm would still find a way to do so.
I think that people should have the right to bear arms, however I also think that weapons should not be so easy to get. A simple background check clearly isn’t doing the trick. There should be a more thorough background check, a multiple day waiting period, a test of the customer’s mental health and stability, and more.
I find it interesting how one must have a license to catch a fish, but any psychopath without a criminal record can walk into a store and come out with an assault weapon. Our right to have weapons, whatever their intended use, is one that was written into the constitution for a reason.
However, American gun laws are far too lenient and lots of important factors are overlooked.
The Iron Triangle, the relationship and exchange of power between the National Rifle Association – henceforth referred to as the NRA – Congress, and the bureaucracy is what’s made passing restrictive gun laws so difficult.
Each of these groups benefit off of each other and share power in different ways. Congress is what approves certain laws to pass.
In relation to this specific topic, the interest group being the NRA, gives Congress electoral support in exchange for Congress to give the NRA friendly legislation and oversight. This is so that the NRA can get laws passed or not passed in ways that benefit them. For example, the AR-15 is one of the most deadly weapons and is easier to gain access to than a handgun. The fact that assault weapons are easier to get than guns mostly used for self defense is due to Congress passing laws that the NRA wants.
This is also true because of the NRA’s relationship with the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy provides low regulation and special favors for the NRA. In return, the interest group gives the bureaucracy Congressional support via lobbying. Congress gives the bureaucracy funding and political support, and the bureaucracy gives Congress policy choices.
So all three parts of the Iron Triangle work to accomplish things that benefit all of them, and they all give each other power, preventing any sort of change from occurring
This isn’t a good for the topic of gun control, as it leads to the ease of obtaining guns, and the difficulty in restricting them. According to a Washington Post article published on Feb. 28, “Dick’s Sporting Goods will no longer sell assault-style firearms, will ban high-capacity magazines and will not sell any guns to people younger than 21, the company announced Wednesday, a significant move for the retail giant in the midst of renewed calls for national gun reform.” This is a movement in the right direction. If retail stores all start making their own gun policies, then the government will feel more pressure to change the laws themselves.