American gun control is mandatory

Facing the importance of societal restrictions in a country loaded with easily accesible firearms

contributed image
contributed image

It wasn’t the first mass shooting massacre in Australia, but it was one which shook the entire nation. The 1996 Port Arthur shooting killed 35 people, including children and the elderly.

Gun laws in Australia never remained the same.

In the United States, there have been 994 mass shootings in the past 1,004 days, yet nothing has changed and hopes for the future are grim.

Evolution is best defined as a gradual development or change from a simple to a more complex form.

The majority of American attitudes are resistent to evolution.

In the wake of the most recent Oregon shooting at a community college, Obama reasoned: “When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer … We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives.”

Yet, a large percentage of Americans fail to understand that implementing gun laws will save lives by preventing an individual with mental illness or prior history of misconduct to get a hold of assault rifles.

According to U.S State Department, the number of American citizens killed on American soil and abroad as a result of terrorist activities amounted to 3,380, between 2001 and 2013.

The amount of deaths caused by firearms on American soil is 406,496 according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: almost 85 deaths a day.

These include homicides, suicides and accidents.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” some argue. Well sure, but there is a call for gun safety courses for people, not guns. There is a call for thorough background checks on people, not guns.

An individual takes the final decision to pull that trigger and end someone’s life.

But if restrictions on gun ownership were increased, the likelihood of the latter happening becomes substantially less likely.

So what is stopping the aforementioned change in gun laws?

Firstly, the pro-gun lobbyists, mostly comprised of the National Rifle Association.

The group boasts itself in being a major political force with over five million members who pour money into the organization, and in turn fund pro-guns politicians who get elected into office.

These politicians will then go on to block and oppose any attempts at gun ownership legislation.

Secondly, the Republicans are an issue.

After the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting of 2012, a gun violence task force was legislated. It included background checks and bans on assault weapons.

It was then introduced and denied by a Republican-dominated Congress. Handcuffed by his own Congress, Obama may never see the change he dreams about.

Finally, there is the American constitution itself.

The United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and Americans seem to be emotionally chained to this.

The constitution 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.”

A constitution written in 1787, after the end of the War of Independence, at a time when local threats were imminent and violence was rampant.

Today, with the mightiest military in the world and the most sophisticated security agencies at home, it is ludicrous to believe access to guns is as easy as it was in the army-less America of almost 230 years ago.

The founding fathers did not create an untouchable constitution for eternity and beyond with no room for change or amendment.

For many, progress means change and fear of the unfamiliar. But changing attitudes towards women and race allowed amendments to the constitution granting women the right to vote, abolishing slavery and extending voting rights to African Americans.

So why must the changing attitudes towards gun ownership be an exception?

Leave a Reply