It’s happened again and is anyone really surprised? Gun violence has become a cultural norm in the United States. With each passing mass shooting people bring up gun control, but then it gets swept under the rug until the next. People have become immune to the violence that persists in this country. But this cannot be ignored.
On a subreddit titled “Guns Are Cool” a group keeps track of mass shootings in the USA. They describe a mass shooting as when “four or more people are shot in an event, or related series of events, likely without a cooling off period.” By this definition there have been 298* mass shootings since January 1st, 2015. That is one every 23 hours.
Most recently* a shooter took the lives of 10 people in Oregon. Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, allegedly opened fire on his college writing class. According to The New York Times, Harper-Mercer entered the classroom with five handguns and a rifle. At home the shooter had another seven guns, totaling 14. All of which were purchased legally by him or his family members.
I understand that people want guns to protect their homes. I understand the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I understand that criminals won’t listen to laws. However, there is still a lot I do not understand.
How does protecting your home translate to owning 14 guns? Where does the line between protection and obsession begin? People can argue that they need different types for different things. Rifles for hunting and handguns for target practice. I can understand that. What they don’t need, however is 14 guns under a roof with two people. What we don’t need is someone with obvious mental issues obtaining a weapon. Dylann Roof, 21, legally obtained the gun he allegedly used to kill nine people at a Charleston bible study group. CNN stated, “The law permits gun sellers to sell guns if a background check takes longer than three days to complete.” Due to this flaw, Roof was able to buy his gun despite the fact that he had previous arrests.
Ratified in 1791, 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 was written at a time when we had just fought a war with England. We won because Americans were willing to band together and fight. Today, however, we have real armies, real marines, real soldiers. I’m not diminishing what the founding fathers did in any way, but in 2015 the need for a militia simply doesn’t exist. So why are we listening to the second half? We do not need guns to keep away the British anymore. Weapons should not be a right.
Criminals don’t listen to gun laws, anyway, so why even make them? Imagine if we used this argument for every law. People are going to rob banks anyway, so why even stop them? I understand the basis behind this argument is to show that if we ban guns, only the good guys will give them up. In theory, I agree. But why does that mean we should let criminals buy guns? Why should this mean we don’t have stronger background checks? According to Huffington Post, eighteen years ago Australia tightened their gun laws and since then their have been zero massacres of the latitude the U.S. sees, nearly every few months.
You may have noticed the asterisks. That is because since initially beginning this article another shooting has taken place in Arizona. Doesn’t that make you stop to think? I am not saying we have to ban every gun in the country. I am saying pretending there isn’t a problem is just buying into ignorance as bliss. There are at least 299 reasons why we need to rethink federal gun control. These reasons do not include homicides nor accidental deaths. Guns may very well not kill people, but they are used by people who do. As a nation we need to wake up and face the fact that ignoring a problem will not make it go away.
