America has seen
an utterly disturbing rise in the number of shooting incidents in recent
months. The mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut in
December 2012 had a death toll of twenty-six, most of the victims being children
under the age of nine. In July of that year, a shooting at a midnight premiere
of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora,
Colorado took the lives of twelve people and injured 58. Nowadays, mass
shootings like these are becoming more and more commonplace and American
citizens are forced to live in fear of their own neighbors. The truth is that there
is something that can be done to prevent more of these atrocities from
occurring. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that American citizens vote to
enact new gun control regulations.
People in general might
think that criminals will just be criminals and simply eschew or circumvent stricter
laws such as universal background checks. At a Senate hearing on gun control, Illinois
Senator Dick Durbin stated, “Criminals won’t go to purchase the guns because
there will be a background check. We’ll stop them at the original purchase.”
(Castal). His explanation for the effectiveness of a more stringent background
investigation process is that the very presence of it will be a deterrent for
criminals who desire to purchase a gun.
Also mentioned at
the hearing was the fact that, since 1994,
“background checks required of licensed gun dealers… had prevented 1.7
million prohibited purchases.” (Castal). This is a very reassuring number, demonstrating
the fact that background checks have prevented nearly two million gun-related
crimes. Criminals will still continue to act illicitly, but the clear fact is
there is some legitimate progress being made.
A rational citizen
is left to wonder what even causes a person to want to commit a murderous crime
with the help of a gun. A Facebook follower of journalist Nick Kristoff
suggests “these crazed killers, arms freaks…and haters” view the publicity and
infamy of mass murder as motivation. Another follower suggests, “Our culture is
to blame - not guns.” These statements are certainly valid. Criminals could
find other ways to gain access to guns even if they are strictly regulated or
outright banned. Although more stringent laws would no doubt aid in the mission
of preventing gun-related violence, it is ultimately up to the people of
America to alter the way they view violence and it’s consequences.
James Eagan
Holmes, the lone gunman responsible for the theatre shooting in Aurora,
Colorado was considered by both relatives and acquaintances to be mentally
unstable with homicidal tendencies. Before the shooting he had even dyed his
hair orange in an attempt to look like The Joker character from The Dark Knight, indicative of his irrationality
and detachment from reality. Despite his unstable nature, he was able to
purchase four guns, legally, over a period of two months. He also purchased
over 6,000 rounds of ammunition off of the Internet. If he had been subjected
to a proper background investigation or a personal evaluation, there is no
possible way he would have been able to amass such an arsenal and there is no
doubt that all of those people in Aurora would still be alive.
An article by
Randy Krehbiel and Rhett Morgan details President Barack Obama’s proposals for
curbing gun violence. One promising suggestion was the President’s executive
order that “no federal law prohibits doctors or other health care providers
from contacting authorities when patients threaten to use violence.” In the
time before the Colorado shooting, Holmes was a psychiatric patient at Anschutz's
Student Mental Health Services and the University of Colorado. This fact, along
with his aforementioned homicidal inclinations, should have acted as a red flag
and prevented his purchases. By supporting President Obama’s new executive
order, Americans can ensure that someone like Holmes cannot gain access to guns
and ammunition.
However, it would
appear that President Obama’s proposals are having a tough time gaining the
support of the American people. This is why there needs to be a change in the
way violence is viewed by the general public. It should be clear to Americans
that by pitting together mental instability and easy access to weaponry, a
heinous crime is possible at any time in any place. If citizens would take this
into consideration, there would be no more mass murders like the one in Aurora.
The new
legislation being proposed in Congress is reassuring, but what of this
country’s current gun laws? The Second Amendment of the United States
Constitution states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed.” The language of this amendment is far too broad and
simplistic. It is too malleable to the whims of those who would seek to twist
the intention of the founding fathers for their criminal plots. Tom Head,
author of an article on the meaning of the Second Amendment states that, “the
Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia
system that is no longer in place.” The amendment was written as part of the
Bill of Rights in the late 1700’s, after the Revolutionary War, which called
for an armed civilian militia to stand against a possible British invasion.
This was a time long before the Internet, high capacity magazines and advanced modern
weapons. At that point, handheld weapons consisted of muskets that took several
minutes to load after firing each individual shot. That is a far cry from the
automatic assault rifles and pistols of today. When writing the Constitution, the
founding fathers were not concerned with a citizen committing mass murder with
a gun because at that time it would have been unfeasible. Gun-worshipping
citizens would still use the language of the Second Amendment to wrongly
support their stockpiling and uninhibited use of weapons, but the fact is
people who admire guns in such a way are certainly not the type of people
Americans should trust with weapons.
However, there are
instances where a rational, mentally sound American citizen should be allowed
to own a gun. In Chris Castal’s article describing the hearing on gun control
reform at the Senate Judiciary Committee, one witness states that guns can act
as “the great equalizer for women.” Women are indeed subject to violence from physically
dominating male assailants on a regular basis in America, and having a gun
could act as either a deterrent for the would-be attacker, or as a life-saving
measure for the victim. It is important that a woman be able to protect
herself, but the problem of violence could be addressed by resolving the
underlying issues.
Today’s economic
climate has led to an increase in violent robberies and muggings, crimes which
women are often a prime target for. This increase in crime and the general
sentiment of hopelessness because of the economic recession has created an
atmosphere of fear among the people of the United States. There are a plethora
of possible solutions to this problem, such as better mental health care
resources. Someone who would see it justified to rob or to murder an innocent
woman for money or material is definitely not of sound mind, and help in that
regard could prevent violence. Also,
education for women in the use of self-defense tactics or even martial arts
could help prevent needless violence. Using a gun should be a last resort for a
potential victim and not a kneejerk reaction.
Enough is enough.
America cannot stand idly by and let this dreadful problem continue to get
worse. Gun enthusiasts may feel their rights are being trampled on, but with a
broader and more open-minded look at possible new regulations, they should be
able to see that the purpose of these new laws is not to oppress them, but to
save innocent lives.
Castal, Chris. “Oklahoma
mom’s self-defense becomes part of gun control debate in Washington” NEWSOK.
Newsok, January 31, 2013. Web. March 22, 2013.
Various. “New
debates on U.S. gun control from around the web. What do you think?” IssueWiki. July 23, 2012. Web. March 22,
2013
Krehbiel, Randy
and Morgan, Rhett. “Oklahoma delegation views on gun curb plan mostly negative”
Tulsa World, January 17, 2013. Web.
March 22, 2013.
Head, Tom. “The Text,
Origins, and Meaning of the Second Amendment” About.com Web. March 22, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment