Gun control- A liberal’s point of view

Jimmy Oliver, Editor-in-chief

One of the many debates in the United States that, to put it bluntly, should have no need for debate, is the question of gun control. There are many Americans that believe we need stricter gun laws. Some politicians, like presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, believe we need stricter regulations on gun sales, like “comprehensive background checks… and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers”(hillaryclinton.com). Others, like Republican candidate Ben Carson believe, according to an interview on Meet The Press, “we should never compromise the Second Amendment(the right to own a weapon).” Then there are people like me. People who are often times considered to be radical, even un-American for their belief that any and all firearms should be banned. It’s time to take a look at our Constitution and make some much needed changes to keep our nation in the 21st century.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, I get it. Our founding fathers wanted Americans to be able to defend themselves. But just think, the Constitution was ratified in 1789. That’s over 200 years ago! Never would they have imagined the invention of the AR-15 assault rifle, capable of firing 800 rounds per minute, or even the handguns we have today. The muskets that were used during the time of the American Revolution could fire only around four rounds by a trained soldier.

Even the wording of the Second Amendment has been a topic of debate. 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.” The very first phrase of this Amendment says we can have “a well regulated militia.” I don’t know about you, but I think a well regulated militia means trained soldiers with a strong knowledge of weapons and military tactics. Not a random civilian that bought an assault rifle at a gun show. We have the National Guard to do that for us. Furthermore, that right was given to Americans in a time where British occupation had just ended in the young United States. I highly doubt we have any threats of domestic tyrannical oppression to worry about nowadays.

With mass shootings, and gun violence in general, only growing in numbers throughout our nation, it seems a bit obvious that we, the people and the government, need to do something about our firearm policy. It’s funny how, even after all of the shooting massacres that have occurred in just the past few years, there still has been little to no change in the law. There are many politicians, including President Obama that want to strengthen our gun-purchasing laws, making it harder for people to buy a firearm. But I highly doubt that will be enough to make any significant change.

When regarding this debate, I ask the question over and over again, who really needs a gun? The argument of self-defense just doesn’t cut it. In shootings that involved “self-defense,” like the Trayvon Martin case from 2012, George Zimmerman’s failure to obey the police, who had told him not to leave his SUV, led to the use of his handgun in the killing of 17-year-old Martin. His excuse was, shockingly, self defense.

It’s pretty sad how mass shootings in the U.S. are a seemingly “normal” occurrence these days. You might think that one massacre at an elementary school, where 26 children and several adults were slaughtered by a gunman armed with a Bushmaster assault rifle, people would recognize the very clear danger that firearms create in our society. This, the infamous Sandy Hook shooting, should have been enough for the American people and government to take action. But instead, our conservative “protect-the-constitution” political mindset kept any major action from being taken. Just imagine, 26 children, slaughtered at the pull of a trigger.

Many argue that guns don’t kill people, but instead, people kill people. I believe this to be true, to a certain extent. Let’s be honest, it’s probably significantly easier to shoot someone from afar than to get close enough to attack them with a melee weapon. Also, an assailant with, say, a knife, would be much easier to apprehend than one with an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. To reiterate, yes, people do kill people. But those killers are much more successful in their murderous endeavors with a firearm in their hands. 

I don’t think there is any possible way to completely rid the United States of gun violence. But there are steps we, and our government, should take to lower the number of shooting victims and guns owned in our country. In 1996, a gunman in Port Arthur, Australia opened fire on civilians, killing 35 and injuring another 23. The Australian government immediately took action, enforcing strict bans on all semi-automatic rifles, as well as both semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Furthermore, Prime Minister John Howard staged a government buy-back program. Nearly one million firearms were sold to the government and destroyed, leading to a 50% decrease in deaths by gunshots.

These are the actions we should attempt to replicate domestically. But instead, let’s keep all firearms of any kind in the hands of the authorities. Guns are a nuisance to our society, posing a potentially deadly threat to the peace of the United States. It’s time to say enough is enough to gun violence and leave the outdated aspects of our Constitution in the past. We live in the 21st century, and there is still much progress to be made. So let’s start by taking firearms off of the street and putting an end to gun violence.