The History Of Guns

The History Of Guns

Is the second Amendment outdated?
210
views

Gun control has been a debate for decades, and little governmental action has been taken to improve gun fatalities.

Since the catastrophic Parkland, Florida high school shooting, the debate over gun control has heightened. An aspect many have yet to focus is on is the history of guns. Identifying the primary reason guns were introduced to this country could help shed light on the necessity of guns today, and contribute to pro-gun control arguments. With that being said, here is a brief history of fire-arms in the United States.

Guns existed since the early times of Colonial America; they were pervasive and necessary for hunting, fishing and general protection. The conflict between Native Americans and Colonialists pushed law makers to mandate gun ownership as a tool to protect oneself, one’s family and their property. If attacks were to take place, citizens would have the resources to fight and defend with a gun.

As history continued, tensions between the government and its citizens increased. Throughout the world there had been brutal monarchies and totalitarian governments which imposed political, economic and religious persecution. The colonialists themselves left Great Britain to pursue a grand opportunity and to escape religious suppression. The government then decided that the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, would grant citizens the right to “bear arms.” They believed that citizens had the right to own fire arms to better fight off any form of tyrannical government.

Many other steps to push and monitor guns took place in these years and years to come. In Revolutionary America, the government further required all persons eligible to serve in a militia to own and be able to operate a gun. This was for the protection of the country in the event of war. About four decades later, restrictions included not allowing any person of “colour” to own or operate a gun. Jump ahead to the 1900’s, regulations became specific in terms of what type of gun was lawful and how to restrict them without violating the Constitution.

After analyzing history, the reason behind gun legalization is clear: Protection.

There were two threats present that demanded a need for gun protection: Firstly, guns were necessary for survival, and protection against regional conflict in early colonial America. Secondly, the opportunity for a tyrannical government to form pushed the government to allow citizens to “bear arms” as a method of protection.

It seems that the main two threats which prompted the government to mandate and legalize guns are outdated.

There is no regional conflict that requires citizens to bear arms. There is the national guard, the army, police force and other bureaucratic departments that protect citizens and the nation. Feudal times demanded every man to fight for themselves, but in U.S. 21st century society, this issue does not exist.

It would be virtually impossible for a tyrannical government to form in the United States. We have an elaborate democratic political system that has mechanisms of checks and balances in all branches of government that cannot allow one person, or one group to take over internally.

Additionally, there is no practicality in the Amendment. If the impossible were to happen and a dictatorship government took over the US, the government would have the most advanced technology and defense resources in the world to defeat us, meaning, guns wouldn’t be effective in any fight. Your AR-15 is useless against a nuclear bomb.

Furthermore, guns are no longer being used for their intended purpose of protection.

Statistically, guns are RARELY used for self-defense. Between 2007 and 2011, of the estimated 28 million violent crimes committed, “0.79% of victims protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior.” This means less than a percent of people used a fire-arm in a violent situation.

Pro-gun control supporters might argue that increasing the presence of guns could directly increase protection of citizens, however, studies show that the presence of a gun in a home increased an “individuals risk of death by homicide to 90%.”

Since guns are no longer primarily being used for protection, gun control laws need to be radically changed for any progress to be made in this country.

There have been about 400, 000 gun deaths between 1999 and 2013, a staggering number compared to countries such as Japan or Singapore where there have been less than 4,000 deaths.

Guns have contributed to astonishing losses, and directly affect the safety of every US citizen. Hopefully, with this knowledge and the uniting of this country, changes will be made to prevent any other fire-arm related deaths.

Cover Image Credit: Pexels

Popular Right Now

An Open Letter to the Person Who Still Uses the "R Word"

Your negative associations are slowly poisoning the true meaning of an incredibly beautiful, exclusive word.
125020
views

What do you mean you didn't “mean it like that?" You said it.

People don't say things just for the hell of it. It has one definition. Merriam-Webster defines it as, "To be less advanced in mental, physical or social development than is usual for one's age."

So, when you were “retarded drunk" this past weekend, as you claim, were you diagnosed with a physical or mental disability?

When you called your friend “retarded," did you realize that you were actually falsely labeling them as handicapped?

Don't correct yourself with words like “stupid," “dumb," or “ignorant." when I call you out. Sharpen your vocabulary a little more and broaden your horizons, because I promise you that if people with disabilities could banish that word forever, they would.

Especially when people associate it with drunks, bad decisions, idiotic statements, their enemies and other meaningless issues. Oh trust me, they are way more than that.

I'm not quite sure if you have had your eyes opened as to what a disabled person is capable of, but let me go ahead and lay it out there for you. My best friend has Down Syndrome, and when I tell people that their initial reaction is, “Oh that is so nice of you! You are so selfless to hang out with her."

Well, thanks for the compliment, but she is a person. A living, breathing, normal girl who has feelings, friends, thousands of abilities, knowledge, and compassion out the wazoo.

She listens better than anyone I know, she gets more excited to see me than anyone I know, and she works harder at her hobbies, school, work, and sports than anyone I know. She attends a private school, is a member of the swim team, has won multiple events in the Special Olympics, is in the school choir, and could quite possibly be the most popular girl at her school!

So yes, I would love to take your compliment, but please realize that most people who are labeled as “disabled" are actually more “able" than normal people. I hang out with her because she is one of the people who has so effortlessly taught me simplicity, gratitude, strength, faith, passion, love, genuine happiness and so much more.

Speaking for the people who cannot defend themselves: choose a new word.

The trend has gone out of style, just like smoking cigarettes or not wearing your seat belt. It is poisonous, it is ignorant, and it is low class.

As I explained above, most people with disabilities are actually more capable than a normal human because of their advantageous ways of making peoples' days and unknowingly changing lives. Hang out with a handicapped person, even if it is just for a day. I can one hundred percent guarantee you will bite your tongue next time you go to use the term out of context.

Hopefully you at least think of my friend, who in my book is a hero, a champion and an overcomer. Don't use the “R Word". You are way too good for that. Stand up and correct someone today.

Cover Image Credit: Kaitlin Murray

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Sorry People, But #BelieveWomen Is #UnAmerican

Presumption of innocence is a core American value

499
views

There's a saying: "Lack of faith and blind faith - both are equally dangerous". Believing sexual assault accusers who are women just because they are women besides being the very definition of sexist - prejudice based on sex - is setting a harmful precedent on the way justice is served in this country. See, what this movement has done is changed justice from "prove guilt" to "prove innocence", an important and incredibly dangerous difference. Where is the due process that our Founding Fathers envisioned, fought, and died for?

Due process is an integral part of the reason why we have the United States of America. It was so important to our Founding Fathers that they included it in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight (the Bill of Rights), and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. It galls me to see how privileged modern day feminists are - so privileged they seemingly forget the freedoms this country affords them, so they may live their life, expect liberty, and be unhindered in their pursuit of happiness.

#BelieveWomen is a vigilante movement - and with vigilante justice the innocent always hang with the guilty, one of the very reasons for due process. I've heard the argument it's better to let innocent men rot in jail than have rapist men walk free, an argument, despite being incredibly moronic and unAmerican, that would not be made if the accused was a man close to the woman's heart. Because with the change to "prove innocence", the assumption will be guilt, and a confirmation bias will be created. Whereas if the assumption is innocence, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred. I understand that a high percentage of rape accusations are truthful (I believe the number is in the high 90s), but the small percentage that are not means we cannot, in good conscience, assume guilt. To assume would damn some men to a fate they do not deserve, a fate they would have to endure simply because of their sex. Any real feminist should be appalled at how sexism is implicitly encouraged in this movement.

If you choose to #BelieveWomen in spite of everything I outlined, that is your prerogative, but you must #BelieveAllWomen. If your father, husband, boyfriend, or son gets accused, you must #BelieveWomen and stand with their accuser. Any less and your feminist privilege will show. Vocal #MeToo activist Lena Dunham has already shown her privilege - accusing actress Aurora Perrineau of lying about being assaulted by her friend Murray Miller. When the going gets hard, feminists rarely stick to their principles. And sadly, feminism - and the double standards it always brings - rears its ugly head once again.

Related Content

Facebook Comments