Just over a year and a half ago, a man walked into a movie
theater and opened fire. Five months later, it was an elementary school. Since
then, it seems as though every few weeks we hear about another gun being drawn
and used to cause terror, pain, and, all too often, death.
At the 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack
Obama made a bold statement that something had to be done to prevent this kind
of violence from tearing the country apart. He punctuated his speech by
inviting the families of shooting victims to the speech and honoring the
memories of those whose lives were cut so mercilessly short.
It turns out, one year later, Obama’s bark was worse than
his bite. Congress did little to nothing to prevent such acts of violence, and
killings didn’t stop. This year alone, in 48 days alone, there have already
been several incidences of killings at the hands of gunmen. In fact, the number
and frequency of public gun violence has increased, rather than decreasing the
past year.
And Obama relented. Little to nothing was discussed during
this year’s State of the Union to address the growing issue. Obama asked for
legislation, Congress said no, and Obama backed off. A year after his initial
call to action, Barack Obama’s second State of the Union of his second term
barely confronted the notion of any form of gun control. It just didn’t make
the list of things to discuss that night.
Here is the scary thought: maybe the violence is
perpetuating itself. Copycats see others successfully (or at least what they
believe to be successful) spread fear and create havoc. Some even may look at
the attention a killer “earns” in a glorified way. All of a sudden, the notion
of using violence may be implanted in the mind of someone who otherwise would
never have considered it.
Although I don’t encourage the ownership of guns, I do
understand the notion that the government shouldn’t be able to tell me what I
can and cannot own. The arguments in defense of the second amendment grow more
tired, though.
At its inception, the second amendment to the constitution
was created for the purpose of allowing citizens to own muskets to maintain a
militia in times of need. At the time, it was imperative for national security
and defense.
Times have changed in the past 200 plus years, though. So
too must our understanding of gun rights, and the right to bear arms. Those who
use second amendment arguments fail to understand that the right to bear arms
originates from the necessity to do so, which truly doesn’t exist. It is also
important to note that very few people are arguing about the right to own a 18th
century musket. The weapons have grown far more terrifying.
This gets very well to the next argument which most gun
carriers hold to: that carrying a gun makes one feel safer and allows for self-defense.
There’s a fundamental error in logic. How can more weapons lead to less
violence? Clearly people are still using their guns; it doesn’t appear as
though concealed carry is being effectively used as a deterrent. And if you’re
so worried about your safety, wouldn’t it be safer to eliminate the guns,
rather than make everyone carry one?
I carry a pocket knife with me most of the time. I like
having it with me. I use it to open boxes, cut through packaging, and other
simple tasks. Could it be used as a weapon? Sure. But its purpose is to be used
as a tool. The same cannot be said for a gun. The gun, especially the automatic
weapon, was invented for the sole intent and purpose of killing. Even when used
recreationally, it is still a killing tool. There is no ability to assume good
will. A gun can be used for nothing but harm, or at the very least,
intimidation and fear.
We had our chance to fix the problem. For 18 months,
Congress has sat back and allowed things to continue with no significant gun
control reform. But now, as each day of inaction passes, the blood is not only
on the hands of the attackers, but also the bystanders. Congressmen and
Senators are elected to serve the people of each state. They fail if their
inaction leads to the unnecessary murder of those citizens.
We need to take away guns. We need to make them nearly
impossible to buy. We need to make ammunition difficult to attain. We need to
make things tough. I respected your right to carry a weapon right up until
someone ruined it. And we ruin it when we continue to allow our peace of mind
to lead to the destruction of human life.
The streets of heaven are too filled with angels. And we can
keep those angels on earth. It’s our job to figure out how.
--Follow us on Twitter at @ZootPerspective for even more great content
I think you've had enough cool-aid! This post is, unfortunately, what I've come to expect from a product of our public education system. It's time to stop reading the Associated Press articles and start doing some independent research.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the second amendment doesn't give us the right to carry muskets. It reads: "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." It gives us the right to bear arms. This amendment wasn't necessary for "national security and defense"; it was necessary as the people's last line of defense against our government. With that in mind, the time to form and train a militia is not when the wolf is at the door.
Second, you claim that gun violence is on the rise when, if fact, the opposite is true. Just comparing FBI statistics from 2007 to 2012 it is apparent that handgun related murders have dropped significantly. For example in Arkansas handgun murders went from 92 in 2007 to 55 in 2012; California from 1,374 to 899; Georgia from 401 to 344 and the list goes on. One glaring exception is Illinois, the state with the most strict gun control, went from 330 in 2007 to 429 in 2012. New York, another state with draconian gun laws, went from 113 in 2007 to 358 in 2012.
You are correct about how situations have changed in the past 200 years. Unfortunately they have not changed for the better. Our government today has demonstrated a great desire to infringe upon our rights from spying on our activities to preventing us from freely moving about the country to forcing us to purchase products we may not want or need. As for the weapons being far more terrifying, 18th century muskets and cannon were the most powerful weapons of their time. They were the equivalent of combat soldier on the street today.
Passing laws in an attempt reduce gun violence will not work. The people who commit the murders are not law abiding citizens. All you are doing is removing the ability of the law abiding citizen to defend himself.
As for taking away guns, it's been done before. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated. With the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others were arrested and exterminated. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.
There are many other examples throughout history. And don't think it can't happen here. Think back to the Japanese internment camps in WWII. How much more would it have taken for the US to have simply "eliminated the problem?"
I agree that we must find a way to reduce violence in our society, but further infringing on our constitutional rights is not the way to do it. We need a societal change that allows the people to gain a better education, and a better standard of living that can take pride in having earned.