Last week’s horrific hate crime in Orlando made it very clear, once again, that mass shootings in the United States are a common occurrence. What’s even more pressing is that so many of the deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the last couple of years. Along with Orlando, Newtown, San Bernardino and Aurora are tragedies forever ingrained in our memories that have all occurred within the span of the last four years. The conversation then turns to trying to find some reason, as if one could be found, as to why these shootings continue to occur. Proposals are made in the U.S. Senate and then they are defeated. 2nd Amendment defenders get riled and accuse the government of “trying to take our guns away.” And the fact remains, that more criminals get their hands on weapons and more people continue to get brutally murdered.
One of the biggest arguments against gun control that is the most troublesome are the fabrications made about violations to the 2nd amendment. Defenders will argue that the government wants to go against our country’s constitution and take away our right to bear arms. No politician has ever proposed to literally take every gun away from the public and from responsible owners. The fact that expanding background checks for gun purchasers is so often voted against continues to leave me dumbfounded. Responsible gun owners will not lose their guns but laws will definitely add more obstacles for criminals to get access to these guns. Are people that unwilling to at least try? Try to support any kind of plan that might prevent at least one loss of life?
The argument then turns to the fact that any type of laws will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns because they will do so illegally. Although that is the case in some instances, the majority of mass shootings in the U.S. have been committed with weapons that have been purchased legally. The shooter that killed 49 people in Orlando was able to get the assault-style rifle he used legally; so could stricter laws for buying these types of weapons (used in many of the recent mass shootings) have prevented the deaths of 49 people? They could have. The fact is that these highly dangerous rifles were not created with the intention to hunt but to kill a lot of people, in a sort amount of time. So it should not be so easy for anyone to get access to them, more precautions should be taken with the responsibility that owning a gun should come with. That criminals will find a way is an insubstantial argument; with that logic there should be no laws against theft or rape, because criminals will find a way around them. Yes, guns laws may not prevent all mass shootings, but they could save at least one life and that’s something I want to support.
Another common conversation in the media centers on Islamic radicalism. Politicians and journalists say that these mass shootings are only to blame on radical terrorists and the focus should be on eradicating terrorism and not on gun control legislation. While terrorism surely is responsible for the deaths of many Americans, how are guns not? The ideology of hate is one that needs to change but without such powerfully deadly weapons, terrorists could not so easily murder innocent people. As host of “The Daily Show,” Trevor Noah pointed out, after the 9/11 terrorists attacks, restrictions were placed on what these terrorists used as weapons. The restrictions in place to get on airplanes have increased numerously since that day, and although we all get a little annoyed at getting x-rays and taking off our shoes; that is a small price I’m more than willing to pay if it will make it harder for terrorists to use a plane as a weapon to kill. The hyper focus on religious radicalism has definitely been a skewed perspective. Non-Muslim people have carried out 90% of attacks on American soil. So to say that the issue our country has does not come from within and should not be addressed through gun control but only through focusing on Islamic radicalism is erroneous at best, dangerous at worst.
The country seems to be rallying to truly affect some kind of change that could prevent events like Orlando from occurring so frequently. The 15-hour filibuster that occurred on the Senate floor last week, led by Senator Chris Murphy, has pressured Republicans to allow votes this Monday on a series of amendments that would close the gun show loophole and expand background checks among others (nothing here about taking anyone’s guns). And why it has been so difficult to even allow senators to talk about any type of reform is becoming much more clear. The NRA’s contributions to U.S. senators and their reelection campaigns correlate very closely with their votes against gun background checks; nine senators alone have received over $22 million dollars accounted for in 2015. So the lack of any type of action from our governmental representatives, at least from a large part of them, does not come from a firm stance on constitutional rights but from selling the safety of Americans for campaign money. As comedian Hasan Minhaj so aptly put it “You make almost $200,000 a year to write rules to make our society better, not tweet, not tell us about your thoughts and prayers.” So, what will it take for Congress to do something, anything to try to prevent another life lost?
