The increase of violent mass shootings has become a serious problem in our country, from incidents in Tucson, Arizona; Aurora, Colorado and most recently Newton, Connecticut. Now Americans are debating if we should have stricter gun control laws to prevent these instances from occurring again. When Jared Lee Loughner walked over to a meeting held by U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in an Arizona parking lot, he opened fired, killing six and injuring 14. This summer, James Holmes walked into a Colorado movie theater and started shooting. His attack left 12 dead and 58 injured. About a month ago, Adam Lanza broke into Sandy Hook Elementary School in a small Connecticut community and aimed at everyone in his path. His rampage left 26 dead, 20 of which were young children. According to CNN, “With the death toll at 26, the Newtown shooting is the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, behind only the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech that left 32 people dead.”
According to the Huffington Post, in response to the recent shootings, President Obama unveiled 23 executive orders that will hopefully decrease the amount of gun violence, which include a ban on assault weapons, universal background checks on gun buyers, a ban on video games that portray gun violence, as well as increased access to mental health treatment, due to the fact that mental illness is a frequent sign in mass shooters. ABC News reported that 53 percent of the country is for Obama’s gun control and 41 percent against, as of Jan. 24, 2013.
However, many Americans argue against the president’s laws and are standing up for their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Groups like the National Rifle Association are making a full-fledged attack. The association’s Executive Director, Wayne LaPierre, released the statement,“Barack Obama, Joe Biden and their gun ban allies in Congress only want to blame you, vilify you, bully you and strip you of your Second Amendment freedoms.” A rather harsh comment about someone who said of his new policies, “This time we must do something to protect our communities and our kids.” The group also released a slanderous commercial in the past week, asking the question, “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” The advertisement goes on to explain how the president’s children are protected by armed guards at their schools, while other schools have gun-free zones. Obama was referred to as an “elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”
I stand behind President Obama’s new gun control laws. It is important to know that these new laws aren’t banning guns altogether. The NRA is overreacting to a law that is aimed at stopping violence and mass shootings like in Newtown. It seems logical to enforce such laws when 20 innocent children just lost their lives. Hunting, collecting and self-defense are among the popular arguments against gun control. There is also the statement, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” However, “a trigger without someone to pull it will never induce carnage. But many triggers that can unleash many rounds make killing many people much easier and more likely,” claims The San Luis Obispo Tribune. The article also argued that people who are bent on violence will continue to hurt others even without guns. “They could use a car or a knife or a baseball bat. But cars, knives and baseball bats have valuable, primary uses and are not designed first and foremost as killing machines. Used correctly, they don’t kill people.”
As for the ban on assault weapons, San Jose Mercury News reported, “It specifically exempts more than 900 firearms used for hunting or sport, along with weapons lawfully purchased before the ban. No one is confiscating any guns. No one is attempting to regulate weapons used for legitimate purposes.” However, it seems difficult to think of a legitimate purpose for an assault weapon. There are special rifles designed for hunting and if someone is extremely apt about having a gun for self-defense, it would seem easier to have something you can carry around with you instead of a massive weapon.
Even if people are law-abiding, responsible gun owners, even with background checks, it will never be impossible for a gun to fall into the wrong hands. What if someone were to have a background check, being cleared as mentally stable and given a gun, then become unstable? We could end up with another Tucson, Aurora or Newtown incident. Needless to say, the outcomes of these mass killings would’ve been different if guns weren’t in circulation. Had Holmes gone into the movie theater with a knife, or Lanza into the school with a baseball bat, a lot less families might be grieving.
Jessica Forte can be reached at jessica.forte@spartans.ut.edu.
@Oh Please- Again, it doesn’t really matter how YOU interpret the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS has interpreted it as an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. In other words, we can have guns! Sweet
The second Amendment states “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.” This does not give citizens the right to bear arms at any given time, but to do so if necessary in order to protect the people from their government. In fact, the entire Bill of Rights was created because people feared that the government was given to much power in the Constitution.
And while I may not be adamantly for or against gun control, I do believe that people should know what rights they actually have. Bearing arms against other citizens is not what the Second Amendment grants to people.
So dear “Just Saying,” while I agree that there are faults in Ms. Forte’s characterization of weapons, and though I agree with most of your comment, there is also fault in your use of the Second Amendment defense.
You do realize that “mass shootings” are happening less frequently after the last assault weapons ban expired, right? Also, the term “assault rifle” does not accurately describe an AR15 weapon: it is simply a semi-automatic rifle with ammunition that is smaller than most hunting rifles. You can reduce the magazine size all you want, but it won’t stop someone from speed-reloading and firing off just as many rounds. One problem with your assumption that “it seems difficult to think of a legitimate purpose for an assault weapon” is that there is something called the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t matter if YOU can’t see a legitimate purpose or not, honestly. I assume you have never owned a weapon and probably don’t have much interest in doing so, so I will forgive your characterization of Civilian semi-automatic rifles as “a massive weapon”. Truth be told: they are actually much smaller than most hunting weapons.
Honestly, unless you have handled weapons or know more about them than what you hear in the media you really shouldn’t write an opinion about them. Your argument has too many flaws to address, so I will leave you with this: Next time you want to write about guns or gun violence, speak with someone who knows a little something about them. Perhaps a veteran? Security guard? ROTC? I am sure everyone will want to shoot me (i.e. annoyed american), which is ironic, but know I will have the means to protect myself. Gun owners/lovers aren’t evil, we simply choose to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights in the manner we see fit. Much like you have used you 1st Amendment rights to write a sub-par opinion piece, we have the right to own what the law allows. If you are annoyed at my critique of how you exercised your rights in this article, you now know how gun owners feel.
Anyone who STILL thinks it’s not necessary needs to be shot themselves. Seriously? AMERICA IS FUCKED with retards like the NRA preventing the safety of our people! It’s gotten to a point where you can’t even go to fucking SCHOOL as an ELEMENTARY kid without getting gunned down. You want to protect your rights? Do it without assault rifles. You do NOT need those. PERIOD.