–by Chloe Sweeney, as part of her ongoing series, “How Should America Respond . . . ?”
The opinions expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of my fellow blog constituents or the Palm Valley School. — C.S.
On December 2nd, the United States was horrified as it witnessed another massacre carried out by fanatics. This tragedy occurred in San Bernardino, California, a mere hour from my home. The aftermath of the crisis came with the leftist rhetoric calling for increased gun control. These shouts for more firearm regulations have become standard after mass shootings.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly articulates Americans’ rights to bear arms. If something is so clearly stated, why are there so many people who wish to infringe upon this right? Already, there are many laws in place that restrict the owning, selling, and usage of guns. For example, it is almost impossible to obtain a Concealed Weapons License in New York City, and California has many laws regulating the type of guns that you may own and the number of rounds you can keep in the gun’s magazine. Despite these laws, there are over 33,600 gun-related deaths annually in the US. Some are quick to point the finger at the NRA, and they say the problem is that there are too many guns. I completely disagree. The problem is that law-abiding citizens are restricted from carrying guns so guns fall in the hands of criminals.
Civilians in France are unable to carry firearms, and we saw what happened in Paris last month. I believe that if more law-abiding citizens were carrying firearms the scope of the tragedy would have been drastically decreased. The case is the same for San Bernardino. The California shooting took place in a gun-free zone. The shooters knew they would be unopposed by any of those attending the holiday party, so they seized the opportunity to slaughter them. Since 2009, 92% of mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. Many establishments–including schools, movie theaters, etc.–are gun free. This makes people sitting ducks. We saw this in the Tennessee military recruiting office where even the soldiers were unable to carry guns. We also saw this at Sandy Hook and the Batman theater attack. There is a reason why terrorists and other shooters go to such locations. They know they will be unopposed. These radical, disturbed people want to encounter unarmed citizens. If we give in to the people who want to decrease gun posse
ssion, then we will continue to see the death toll rise due to mass shootings.
In my opinion, almost all gun laws are completely pointless. Laws such as what guns you can own, how many bullets you keep in the gun, and where you can carry guns are only followed by law-abiding citizens who DON’T want to kill people. A terrorist will use a machine gun whether or not they are legal. It honestly makes no
difference whether or not these laws exist. The laws are simply in place to give people a false sense of security. If a fanatic wants to carry out a mass shooting, they will do so regardless of laws. When someone has made up his or her mind to do something, no law will stand in opposition.
With gun laws, I believe the most important thing is to use common sense. People should be required to have a background check before purchasing a gun. You shouldn’t be able to buy a gun until you are over 18 without a parent/guardian present. If you are on the no-fly list you CANNOT be allowed to buy a gun. If you are on the terrorist-watch list you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. If you are not a naturalized American citizen you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. Specifically anyone in America on a visa, especially from countries with a large terrorist presence, cannot be allowed to purchase a gun.
Many people feel like you should only be allowed to own hunting guns, but I completely disagree.
A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of
independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. –George Washington
I am not saying that we need to be armed to overthrow the government, but I believe this quote explains why Americans have the right to carry guns. The Founding Fathers did not write the 2nd Amendment so that we could go hunting, which is still a very important part of it, but the law was written so that Americans could protect themselves. The American people must be able to stand up against evil and radical terrorists who threaten their lives and the lives’ of their children. It can take minutes for law enforcement to reach the scene of a mass shooting, but if terrorists find themselves attacking a crowd of armed citizens, many innocent lives will be spared.
I believe that Americans need to be able to carry concealed weapons in each and every state without any restrictive zones. Let me remind you that in order to obtain a Concealed Weapons License, you need to be thoroughly vetted and go through gun-safety training. Law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase legally and own whatever type of gun they please. For guns such as assault rifles and machine guns, I believe prospective buyers should go through a brief safety training and should also go through a mental health evaluation. This is because the vast majority of mass shooters are young men who have fallen susceptible to radicalization or are extremely mentally unstable. I do not believe that all teachers should be forced to carry guns on campus, but I do believe there needs to be an adequate number of armed guards depending on the size of the campus and the number of students. I wish that this could mean that we will all be safe, but unfortunately we live in a world with evil people who desire the slaughter of innocents.
Do guns make us safer? I am not convinced that they do. Countries with restricted access to gun have lower rates of gun violence; it’s a simple and easily understood fact.
However, we live in a country where access to firearms is protected by the Bill of Rights, and allowing the government to curtail our rights in the name of ‘safety’ is never acceptable. Examine the rhetoric presented by those who wish to restrict the Second Amendment as if they were speaking about the First Amendment. A country with ‘No Free Speech Zones’ or required permits and checks before citizens can speak, publish, or assemble openly sounds like an Orwellian nightmare.
While the Right to Bear Arms remains a constitutionally protected right (and I’m not convinced that it should), we should exercise and defend it with the same passion that we defend Freedom of Speech. As Benjamin Franklin said, ““They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I completely disagree. In response to your Paris thing, the UK also outlaws guns. And how many shootings have they had since 2010? One (the one before that was in 1996). How many has the US had since 2010? Over 100. You know what would be a perfect solution to that? MORE GUNS! Makes so much sense! The USA leads the world in mass shootings, and ridiculous strategies like this won’t reduce the death toll at all.
I have only TWO responses:
ONE You write: “The problem is that law-abiding citizens are restricted from carrying
guns so guns fall in the hands of criminals”
This argument, as worded, is doubly flawed:
. First, law-abiding citizens are NOT restricted from carrying guns.
Second, there is no causal relationship between good guys not carrying guns
and guns falling into the hands of criminals.
TWO Matthew 26:52
“Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword
will die by the sword”.
Well put, Mr. Sarkis, well put.–T.L. & H.H.