On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza killed his mother with an AR-15 assault rifle. He then made his way to Sandy Hook Elementary School, armed with the aforementioned assault rifle, as well as two handguns (a Glock and a Sig Sauer). There, he managed to kill 26 more people, including 20 children (none over the age of 7), before killing himself. On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attacked Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, killing 13 people and wounding 21 others before killing themselves. The two were in possession of two sawed-off shotguns, as well as a high powered carbine and a semi-automatic handgun. This massacre was, at the time, the deadliest school shooting in United States history. On April 16, 2007, in the deadliest school shooting in United States history, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Choi murdered 32 people, wounding 26 more before committing suicide. On the day of the attack, Choi was armed with two semi-automatic handguns, ordered offline. These tragedies have all sparked debate about the validity of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. My sole question is this: What purpose do weapons serve?
All of the aforementioned massacres, as well as the countless others that have taken place on American soil could have been prevented with the ban of firearms. In 2010, the latest year for which statistics are available, 8,775 people were murdered with guns in the United States. The Small Arms Survey, published in 2007, showed that although the United States is home to less than 5% of the world's population, it is home to roughly 35-50% of the world's civilian owned guns. All of these statistical surveys show that the United States is home to an unusually high rate of gun violence, and yet our government makes no attempts to cut down on the chance of gun violence.
Many people make the argument that guns are the right of Americans based on the Constitution, and that it's something our forefathers would want us to have. But you have to look at the context under which the Constitution was written. 1787 (the year the Constitution was written) was less than 10 years after the Revolutionary War, a time when men took up arms against the tyrant King George III and achieved victory. It was a time when these men were still convinced that weapons were necessary for the self-defense of civilians. But back then, the deadliest weapon there was was a slow-loading musket, that had a firing rate of four shots per minute. Today's weapons can fire at a rate of up to 950 rounds a minute. That's 15 bullets a second.
There's also the school of thought that the Constitution is an unadulterated, shining guide when it comes to how a government should be run. But let's take a look at some of the other literature of the time. In 1776, our Declaration of Independence declared that African Americans were only 3/5 human. And yet, we do not still live by that assertion. My point is that the idead of a right to bear arms is an outdated one. We no longer live in a time of shifting regimes and revolution. We are the United States of America. We are free. We are independent. The time for militias and civilian-owned guns is over. For anyone to say that an assault rifle loaded with .223 mm hollow point bullets has a purpose is simply ludicrous. We have to move on from the constraints of the past, and understand that not everything our forefathers did was saint-like. Living by documents written over 200 years old is insane, and tragedies such as the Columbine, the Sandy Hook massacre, and the Virginia Tech shooting can all be prevented.
Guns play no role in our society in the hands of civilians. It has become much too easy to acquire them, and it is making life hazardous to your health. We have people supporting gun ownership who are bewildered when things with firearms go awry. The only way to eliminate the possibility of gun violence is to ban the sale and production of firearms for non-military use.
No comments:
Post a Comment