by WashDCDemocrat
Within 24 hours, two shootings halfway around the world take place, with ten dead in Georgia and 15 more dead in Germany. Ever since Columbine, shooting rampages don't take place often, but grip our attention like nothing else does. This is, quite possibly, the first time that two shootings of such a nature took place in such a short amount of time - and these shootings, along with others - bring into focus flawed gun laws and careless oversight.
Take, for example, the Virginia Tech tragedy. Over thirty people lost their lives at the hands of one college student, who was not barred from owning a gun despite a judge declaring him mentally unstable, because he was not confined to a mental health institute. Or the shooting at a German school, in which a 17-year-old had 15 weapons in his father's home - 14 of which were under lock and key. Do the math - that single gun killed 15 people and wounded more before the killer's suicide.
Even as this goes on, the NRA still cries for more loaded guns, saying that "our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules." Really? If this was true, we wouldn't line up patiently to vote - we'd be in a shootout every four years. The reason for the 2nd Amendment was because the militias were all civilians at the time. We now have the National Guard, in addition to the Army and the Army Reserve. Perhaps we should look back at Germany: "If a citizen wants to own a gun, they should join the military. Ordinary citizens don't need guns," said a former German officer. Throughout most of Europe, this is true. Most European police officers don't carry guns, and as opposed to having a SWAT Team - Special Weapons And Tactics - their force might be more accurately described as a WAT Team - Weapons And Tactics.
Do I think we should ban guns altogether, though? No, as a gun at your nightstand repels a home invader faster than a cell phone with a cop on speed dial. But if we restrict ammunition, and (more importantly) not allow the sale of military-grade assault weapons at gun shops, as anyone with an assault rifle on the street anyway is probably up to no good, we'll live on safer streets, in safer cities.
2 comments:
I just want to mention something about the second amendment: No where in it does it state that the people have the right to own firearms, what it does say is that people have a right to "keep and bear arms," which is an idiom. In the eighteenth century, when the bill of rights was written, the phrase meant that the people could 1.) remain in what is now the National Guard during peacetime, and 2.) fight within the National Guard for the good of the people. To prove that this is an idiom, I give you a quote from "Hamlet" Act III, Scene I, "To be or not to be, that is the question:/Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer/The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,/Or to take arms against a sea of troubles." Though Hamlet picks the latter, to take arms, he never wages an actual war or literally fights against his predicament with a sword (unless one counts the duel with Laertes and the murder of Polonius.)
Interesting point, but I disagree. The framers did not want the rights to own guns to be abridged. During a war of independence fought mainly through guerrilla warfare and civilian militias, it would be unthinkable to have any restrictions at all on guns, considering that their lives were threatened by British invasion on almost a daily basis.
Times have changed, though, and just as it is unreasonable for civilians to own or build nuclear devices or weapons of mass destruction, there should likewise be restrictions on the level of firepower permissible. Hunters need rifles. But no reasonable person would assert that it takes a rocket-propelled grenade or a submachine gun to protect one's house. Furthermore, common sense dictates that we should be vigilant about keeping weapons out of the hands of felons. By committing a violent crime, you forfeit the right to firearms. That's not so punitive, is it?
Post a Comment