Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Forefronting the Gun Control Debate

On Dec. 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, a Connecticut native, broke into Sandy Hook Elementary School with his Bushmaster AR-15. In less than five minutes, Lanza wreaked havoc upon the school before claiming his own life with a bullet. Among the 26 victims, 20 were children and six were adult staff members. World leaders sent messages of condolences as America wept over the loss of lives in this tragedy. The shooting rampage, again, brought up an important conversation in America: gun control.

However, just like previous attempts at gun debates, the progress is impeded by the stubbornness of gun-right lobbyists and many gun owners. They claim any attempt to ban automatic rifles, and to either limit the number of cartridges for these rifles or increase the intensity of background checks, is an infringement on liberty, a breach of the U.S. Constitution and a flagrant interference of the government. Adopting the all-or-nothing attitude, lobbyists and gun owners contend that unless the government can guarantee that guns will not kill anyone when stricter laws are enforced, they will not surrender the military automatic rifles.

The Second Amendment, which 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” is frequently cited by gun-right proponents as a legal justification for their possession of firearms. However, they usually just focus on “the right to keep and bear Arms,” and not enough on its relation to “a well regulated Militia”.

The Second Amendment was deemed necessary when the United States did not have any active standing army or police force. America, rather, relied on bands of militias formed by men in household for the bulk of national defense. Now, the United States has one of the largest standing armies, possesses state-of-the-art weapons and technologies and has mustered an extremely effective police force. Americans no longer see the threat of an invasion from any country on the planet, and thus, the need for household possession of guns is unwarranted.

Furthermore, the “arms” mentioned in the Second Amendment referred to a variety of close combat and melee weapons. In the 1700s, a “gun” was considered a Flintlock Musket, which could only fire one pellet at a time, rather inaccurately, and could take up to a minute to reload. Nowadays, firearms sold at gun stores have evolved drastically from the simple musket design. Even a handgun can hold multiple bullets in one magazine and an automatic rifle can empty its magazine in a matter of seconds with pinpoint accuracy. Clearly, today’s technology and progress render the Second Amendment out of context.

Some take up the position that although guns may be the apparent means directly responsible for injuries or deaths, they are not the true perpetrator — the users are. Guns are tools, just like hammers. They believe if someone intends to kill, a gun or a hammer does not make much of a difference. Therefore, if the government were to ban guns, it should also ban hammers, knives and any other tool that can potentially inflict injuries.

Indeed, a gun is a tool. But unlike a hammer or a knife, which is designed to assist people with daily tasks, a gun is a tool designed specifically to kill or injure. Besides those ends and functions, there is nothing else to it. Guns are the ultimate expression of inflicting harm and inciting violence, it stands for a desperate last resort measure.

President Obama visited Sandy Hook two days after the incident to pay tribute to the victims and offer his condolences to their families. He promised to keep gun control as a focal point for his second term, saying: “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics”.

However, despite the revived debate on guns, no concrete actions have manifested. In the past two years since Sandy Hook, there have been 98 more incidents across America in which a firearm is discharged inside a school or institutions of learning. The sensational, short-sighted and polarized politics prevent any concrete and unified response to the incident. Tragic as it might have been, the shooting was not seen as a tipping point in the ongoing gun debate. Instead, the horrendous shooting is now only a statistic, a could-have-been-pivotal event, something that is only visible through the rear mirror.

Duy Mai is a freshman in School of Foreign Service. The Worldernist appears every other Thursday on thehoya.com. 

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

All The Hoya Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *