Recently an issue has arisen in this country that has sparked quite the debate between conservatives and liberals/generation X. It is, of course, the issue surrounding guns and control of them in light of the Parkland shooting. Now I know how controversial this topic is so I am going to stay as neutral as possible so I can tell the straight facts. The biggest issue is that people who are pro-second amendment do not want to have gun obtaining and owning affected through either banning or regulation. The logic behind that does make sense to be fair. It is our right just like we have the freedom of speech and religion. However, the context through which the first amendment was instituted has remained consistent. The context for the second amendment has changed however, and let me explain how.
When the second amendment was instituted, we were still a young nation just separated from the tyrannical government of Britain. We had endured years of being forced to pay unjust taxes and follow laws established by a government overseas. In an effort to protect our newly acquired freedom, the second amendment was instituted so that the people would have the power to protect themselves from any kind of tyrannical power that may attempt to take that freedom away. During this time, there was not really any kind of justice or law enforcement system to protect citizens so they had to take it upon themselves through the formation of local militia in addition to citizens wielding their own guns. The weapon also utilized around the late 1700s was the musket, a single shot rifle that took roughly 20 seconds to shoot ( 3 times a minute ). Only in Boston in 1838 was the first police force instituted whose goal it was to capture criminals and keep the streets safe. Currently, there are 18,000 police departments, roughly 360 per state, in the US. Since the development of this public protection, there is no need really for citizens to have their own weapons except for in hunting or shooting competitions both of which are primarily performed for sport.
A reoccuring theme I have noticed surrounding this topic is that those who have never really personally experienced the devastation a shooting causes are the ones dictating policies around guns. Of course, statistically, there will always be a small percentage that do not follow that statement but for the most part people affected and who sympathize with them want guns regulated and some of the more distraught want them banned. The argument against this is that it does infringe upon the right to bear arms but the key fact that seems to be missed is that guns have developed immensely. Take the AR-15 for example, a weapon used in both the Parkland and Vegas shooter. An AR-15 can fire 400 rounds per minute or roughly 6 rounds a second. The rate can increase to 600 rounds per minute but at the risk of melting the gas tube. The AR-15 is also considered a military grade semi-automatic rifle. The problem I have is that unless the US has recently become either a police state, the criminal justice system has been disbanded, or our country is currently being run by another government that commandeered us, then there is no reason for such high powered rifles to be carried by citizens.
The main point I am trying to emphasize is that before you strongly defend a side in an argument think about a few questions first: Has anybody been previously affected in a negative way by the topic at hand? Does it logistically make sense to support an issue with all facts given? If I were in the shoes of the person I am debating against, would I keep the same mind set or change it? Science and facts indicate that humans are traveling a very destructive path, do your part to make sure society stays fruitful and positive.
