Second Amendment threatens safety
December 5, 2018
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. — Bill of Rights
Historically, guns were the main weapon used within the military. The original intent of the second amendment was to be able to defend oneself against a tyrannical government or outside forces. However, the military today has advanced, and there is technology that guns could never combat against. Therefore, the amendment is out of date.
Defending oneself is a right people should have. However, an individual does not need a semi-automatic firearm in order to feel safe. These are the guns that take lives in mass shootings. Although, any gun poses a threat to a human life.
Gun culture in the U.S. is staggering in comparison to any other foreign country. In 1996, Australia suffered a massacre in which a man killed 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. Immediately after this incident, they banned semi-automatic and automatic weapons in their country (one incident and they were done). Despite the amount of shootings we have had in our country, mass and small, the government hasn’t, and can’t, just ban certain weapons in the U.S.; due to the gun lobby, and the array of supporters behind the second amendment.
Banning entire classes of weapons altogether has benefited the Australians and lowered their death by gun rates, and homicide rates (stats) . Federal prohibition on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004 did exist, but these restrictions expired. Even though semi-automatic weapons have not been banned, the country has taken steps toward gun control by banning bump stocks that can be used to fire a semi-automatic rifle at rates approaching full-automatic.
It seems that mass shootings (where ten or more people are killed) constantly circle the news. From schools, to synagogues, to bars, it seems that nowhere is safe.
Mass shootings are not the only issue raised by guns. In 2018, there were 68 deaths in mass shootings, but 12,509 gun related deaths. Gun related deaths such as unintentional, suicide, and domestic violence add to this number.
Unintentional child gun deaths result from shootings in a family’s vehicle or home with a legally owned, but irresponsibly stored gun. The responsibility that comes along with a gun needs to be acknowledged. When in the wrong hands, these lethal weapons do great harm.
The accessibility to guns is regulated by background checks, but still guns end up in the wrong hands. At least 175 of mass shooters’ weapons were obtained legally, 52 were obtained illegally, and 78 are undetermined. So the argument that stricter gun laws won’t limit mass shootings is sort of invalid since 175 weapons were obtained legally. Stricter laws could have prohibited 175 weapons from being used.
The right to bear arms is a valued, but outdated, amendment. When does the safety of citizens and rates of gun deaths infringe upon a document written over 200 years ago?
Resources:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-do-u-s-gun-laws-compare-to-other-countries
https://everytownresearch.org/issue/unintentional-deaths/
Second Amendment needs to be preserved
This man asserts his right to bear arms, an important amendment in the US Constitution.
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.
— Bill of Rights
The second amendment is meant to help protect us, the people, from threats against our families and lives. To take that right, and demolish it, even a little, could put you and your family in harm’s way. Not only are you putting yourself and your family at risk of being hurt, but you’re also making it harder to protect themselves in the future.
If you think that having gun laws minimizes the risk of being harmed, then your dead wrong. Having gun laws doesn’t help the situation of mass shootings, suicides, homicides, nor killing in general, because no matter how many gun laws there are, criminals are criminals, which means that they do things that are illegal. If you think that gun laws are going to lessen crime, then you are sorely mistaken. Crime will happen no matter what, an example would be the amendment against alcohol. That amendment did nothing to stop people from drinking, if anything it increased alcohol sales.
If there were to be gun laws, it should go as far as to check a person’s mental state, and see if they have family that is either in a depressed state, or is having thoughts of revenge against someone that did wrong to them. Gun laws should also have people learn to properly clean, shoot, and lock up a gun properly. Gun laws should have people get gun licenses to legally own a gun. Gun laws should require that a salesman check a person’s background to see if that person had recently commited a crime involving a gun, or was a victim.
Gun laws should not, however, prohibit certain types of guns, unless it is common sense that someone doesn’t need an RPG. If anything, you don’t need to have an explosive device to protect yourself. Sidearms, however, should not be prohibited, no matter the kind. The sawed off shotgun is a good example of this. Although a sawed off shotgun is illegal for the public in the government’s eyes, it might not be to the citizens’ eyes.
Some people believe that if the forces protecting our freedom can have firearms such as .50 caliber sniper rifles, or sawed-off shotguns, or any other unneeded sidearm, then they should have the right to, too. While its unneeded, it’s understandable, as if you are going to protect yourself. Then the people fighting with you shouldn’t feel like a rag-tag army.
Although laws are meant to keep people safe, gun laws don’t really help. Really, the only thing that would help is regulating how people get their guns.