There is something fundamentally wrong with our society when many consider the upcoming battle for gun control an uphill one, which will be met with powerful, passionate, and fierce opposition. How can you not favor, after such a brutal slaughter of innocence, a complete overhaul or at least a drastic change in our current system? How can some people, even elected representatives, claim that more guns are needed to keep our children safe? In the wake of these frighteningly common shootings, the answers which seem so simple and common-sense, become more evasive and implausible.
What is so disheartening and downright mind boggling at times, is the logic of those proponents of expansive interpretations of the Second Amendment, like the one held by the NRA. The Second Amendment is very subjective; in fact the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a new phenomenon, which only began a few decades ago. The NRA essentially turned guns into a political fight. A fight against less government, which has allowed for private citizens to buy and own some of the deadliest weapons on Earth, at ease. The common theme among those in this group, is that guns are used to prevent crime, and if someone had possessed a gun during the tragic shooting, deaths could have been prevented. In other words, more armed citizens will help to prevent crime. It suffices to say this logic is absurd, but it isn't the reasoning that is most problematic, but rather the underlying belief behind the reasoning. The disturbing aspect is that those who make such outrageous comments, make a subtle admission that these events are unavoidable. In essence, they are saying that shootings are going to happen, and we must arm ourselves so that in the event something like this occurs, we can protect ourselves. Bad people do bad things, and there is nothing we can do about it. This acceptance of the consequences of the Second Amendment, are consequences I am unwilling to accept. Why should I? Why don't we simply eliminate the threat all together, by doing what every other developed country has already done; placing severe restrictions on private gun ownership. Why should I accept that shootings at schools will invariably occur, and the only way to prevent more casualties is to have the teachers armed? Why not enact laws that make it so the guns can't be acquired in the first place? This, of course, would render the Second Amendment a shell of its current from. But if that saved someone's life, like the life of a child, wouldn't you do it in a heartbeat?
This goes to the core of the fight over gun control. It is an issue of framing the argument, and those who favor gun control have done an extremely poor job. The NRA is very wealthy and very well organized. They have done a tremendous job at advancing their views of the Second Amendment; using politicians to ensure gun legislation is not passed. There is no organization on the other side that even compares in scope and effectiveness to the NRA. What gun-control advocates must come to terms with is that the changes that are being proposed should be the starting point, not the end. Banning assault rifles, tightening regulations, and providing better access to mental health facilities will help, but will not cure the problem. There must be an understanding that the modern day Second Amendment interpretation has failed. It doesn't work. More guns does not mean more safety. If we want to save lives, allowing unfettered access to any gun must be abolished. We must rid ourselves of this notion that every law-abiding citizen has the right to privately own a gun. If you don't want mass shootings then that is the truth we must accept. Providing more guns to law-abiding citizens, on a rare occasion, may save someone's life, but it will never fix the bigger issue. There is a clear choice to be made. If the NRA wishes to continue its quest for a nation of bountiful guns, they must also accept that there will shootings in malls, houses of worship, and in schools. The two go hand in hand. It will be impossible to drastically reduce our gun fatalities if the system doesn't change. If the Second Amendment provides the right to keep and bear arms, don't children, who are not allowed to possess a gun, have rights too? Children are at the mercy of the adults who make decisions. We are the ones who determine the life we want our kids to live; it is a grave duty we hold. Thus we must choose: guns or our children. The two are mutually exclusive. We cannot have both. It is a solemn promise, but if gun laws do not undergo a drastic change and overhaul, more children will be killed by guns.
Imagine that the alien who came to Earth to stay with you was curious about America and started asking questions about guns. Imagine you told the alien that Sandy Hook was not the first time, or even the second time something like this had happened. Imagine if you told the alien that in the past 6 months alone, there was a shooting at a mall that killed two people, a shooting a Sikh temple that killed 6 people, and a shooting a movie theater that killed 12. Imagine the alien's shock and disbelief. Then you can tell it that in 1999, 13 people were murdered in a school shooting and that in 2007, 32 people were murdered in a school shooting. And then you can mention that 6 people, including a nine year old girl, were killed outside a grocery store; an attack which left a United States congresswoman with a bullet wound to her head. Imagine the alien's reaction when you told the alien that the gun used to kill 20 children was the civilian version of the M-16, a gun used by soldiers in war zones. You can describe to the alien that the bullets in the gun fragment inside the body and cause devastating internal injuries, which is why they are used by soldiers to kill enemy combatants. The next day the alien is gone. You wonder where he went and you find a note he has left for you. "I have left the United States and returned to my planet. I feel much safer there."
What is so disheartening and downright mind boggling at times, is the logic of those proponents of expansive interpretations of the Second Amendment, like the one held by the NRA. The Second Amendment is very subjective; in fact the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a new phenomenon, which only began a few decades ago. The NRA essentially turned guns into a political fight. A fight against less government, which has allowed for private citizens to buy and own some of the deadliest weapons on Earth, at ease. The common theme among those in this group, is that guns are used to prevent crime, and if someone had possessed a gun during the tragic shooting, deaths could have been prevented. In other words, more armed citizens will help to prevent crime. It suffices to say this logic is absurd, but it isn't the reasoning that is most problematic, but rather the underlying belief behind the reasoning. The disturbing aspect is that those who make such outrageous comments, make a subtle admission that these events are unavoidable. In essence, they are saying that shootings are going to happen, and we must arm ourselves so that in the event something like this occurs, we can protect ourselves. Bad people do bad things, and there is nothing we can do about it. This acceptance of the consequences of the Second Amendment, are consequences I am unwilling to accept. Why should I? Why don't we simply eliminate the threat all together, by doing what every other developed country has already done; placing severe restrictions on private gun ownership. Why should I accept that shootings at schools will invariably occur, and the only way to prevent more casualties is to have the teachers armed? Why not enact laws that make it so the guns can't be acquired in the first place? This, of course, would render the Second Amendment a shell of its current from. But if that saved someone's life, like the life of a child, wouldn't you do it in a heartbeat?
This goes to the core of the fight over gun control. It is an issue of framing the argument, and those who favor gun control have done an extremely poor job. The NRA is very wealthy and very well organized. They have done a tremendous job at advancing their views of the Second Amendment; using politicians to ensure gun legislation is not passed. There is no organization on the other side that even compares in scope and effectiveness to the NRA. What gun-control advocates must come to terms with is that the changes that are being proposed should be the starting point, not the end. Banning assault rifles, tightening regulations, and providing better access to mental health facilities will help, but will not cure the problem. There must be an understanding that the modern day Second Amendment interpretation has failed. It doesn't work. More guns does not mean more safety. If we want to save lives, allowing unfettered access to any gun must be abolished. We must rid ourselves of this notion that every law-abiding citizen has the right to privately own a gun. If you don't want mass shootings then that is the truth we must accept. Providing more guns to law-abiding citizens, on a rare occasion, may save someone's life, but it will never fix the bigger issue. There is a clear choice to be made. If the NRA wishes to continue its quest for a nation of bountiful guns, they must also accept that there will shootings in malls, houses of worship, and in schools. The two go hand in hand. It will be impossible to drastically reduce our gun fatalities if the system doesn't change. If the Second Amendment provides the right to keep and bear arms, don't children, who are not allowed to possess a gun, have rights too? Children are at the mercy of the adults who make decisions. We are the ones who determine the life we want our kids to live; it is a grave duty we hold. Thus we must choose: guns or our children. The two are mutually exclusive. We cannot have both. It is a solemn promise, but if gun laws do not undergo a drastic change and overhaul, more children will be killed by guns.
Imagine that the alien who came to Earth to stay with you was curious about America and started asking questions about guns. Imagine you told the alien that Sandy Hook was not the first time, or even the second time something like this had happened. Imagine if you told the alien that in the past 6 months alone, there was a shooting at a mall that killed two people, a shooting a Sikh temple that killed 6 people, and a shooting a movie theater that killed 12. Imagine the alien's shock and disbelief. Then you can tell it that in 1999, 13 people were murdered in a school shooting and that in 2007, 32 people were murdered in a school shooting. And then you can mention that 6 people, including a nine year old girl, were killed outside a grocery store; an attack which left a United States congresswoman with a bullet wound to her head. Imagine the alien's reaction when you told the alien that the gun used to kill 20 children was the civilian version of the M-16, a gun used by soldiers in war zones. You can describe to the alien that the bullets in the gun fragment inside the body and cause devastating internal injuries, which is why they are used by soldiers to kill enemy combatants. The next day the alien is gone. You wonder where he went and you find a note he has left for you. "I have left the United States and returned to my planet. I feel much safer there."
