Mama, put my guns in the ground; I can't shoot them anymore

     Well, Mr. Dylan, you may be right. Or at least some government officials think you should be. After 20 people were shot in Arizona last week, including a state senator, some government officials are trying to crack down on gun laws and make them more restrictive. On the one hand, this seems like a good idea. In Arizona, anyone who can pass an instant background check and who is 21 years of age or over can carry a concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state--without a permit. As someone who grew up shooting guns recreationally and learning about gun safety, I am in support of the 2nd amendment. But if people are going to carry concealed weapons, I believe that they should have a permit so that they're at least on record as a gun-carrying citizen. And I think that they should have to pass a psychological test.
     Just because I'm not on record as committing any crimes doesn't mean I should be able to walk into a gun show and purchase a semi-automatic Glock that holds 30 rounds. Not only that, but I shouldn't be able to carry said gun, a) because it fires more than 20 rounds, and b) without a permit that puts me on record as being a gun-carrying citizen. I fully support the idea of being able to carry weapons. I mean, think about it: if you walk into a convenience store in Maryland with a .45 in your jacket and a plan to rob the place, you know that the odds that someone else in that store also has a gun in their jacket are slim because it's illegal in that state.  But, if you walk into a convenience store with a similar plan in many southern states, you know that not only the shopkeeper but also some of the patrons are most likely carrying as well, and you're much less likely to pull out your gun and try to steal anything or hurt anyone. Because you know that someone will gladly shoot you to protect him or herself.
    So yes, when it comes to laws that require psychological testing, more intensive background checks, and enrollment in gun safety classes in order to purchase a gun, I agree. And when it comes to restricting the amount of rounds one clip can fire, I also agree. But when people like Congressman Peter King of New York try to pass a law not allowing any citizen to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official, I think to myself: how are you going to enforce this? Because here's the sad truth: gun laws only affect people who obey the law. And obviously law-abiding citizens are not the people we need to worry about. Banning guns only puts the rightful gun-owners in danger. It makes it possible for criminals who buy guns on the black market to commit crimes against people who--as a result of such a ban--no longer have a way to protect themselves. Criminals will always have access to firearms--law-abiding citizens who meet the proper mental, psychological, and educational criteria should have access to them as well.
     But back to Congressman King's proposed law--are you going to pat down every single person within 1,000 feet of a federal official? Anyone can conceal a weapon! And federal officials don't walk around inside a bubble--they're constantly surrounded by people! Sure, maybe law-abiding citizens would leave their guns at home, but anyone with bad intentions could easily carry a gun wherever and whenever they wanted without any repercussions, until it's too late and they've already shot and/or killed someone. Again, laws only apply to people who obey the law.
     And yes, I'm quoting a bumper sticker here, but guns don't kill people; people kill people. It's true. People will always find ways to kill each other. But maybe if someone else had been carrying a gun at that political event last week, someone could have shot Loughner before he took the lives of six innocent people. It's morbid to think about, but as long as criminals have access to firearms (and they always will), gun crimes will occur. It makes sense that properly educated and evaluated citizens should have access to firearms as well, so that we can prevent or at least deter crimes like the one that occurred in Arizona.
     We need to be able to protect ourselves and each other, even if it means fighting back with the very actions we are trying to prevent. Until a completely inpenetrable and portable bulletproof vest is invented, there is no other way. I don't disagree with the concept of creating gun laws, but I do think that they need to be reasonable. We have to remember that in the majority of cases, the people toward which these laws are directed are the people who are living outside of the law. The truth is that the opportunity for a gun-carrying citizen to actually use their weapon to prevent another gun crime is rare. But it would be nice to know that I would be able to do so if I was one day confronted with a situation where my only choice was to shoot back.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110111-714059.html
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132801364/arizona-gun-laws-among-most-lenient-in-u-s?ps=cprs
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/11/132844807/gop-congressman-ban-guns-near-federal-officials