From the Age of Muskets to the Age of Mass Shootings

Gun control has long been a topic of heated discussion, focusing around the 2nd Amendment and the powerhouse that is the NRA. In the shadow if the recent Las Vegas shooting, the most deadly to ever occur killing 59 and wounding nearly 600, the push for increased gun control and, in some cases, an all-encompassing gun ban is being brought to the forefront of local and national governments

The loudest voice against these suggestions is the NRA. In their statement regarding the incident, a representative said banning guns “will do nothing to prevent future attacks”. Instead, they and many that support the often criticized 2nd Amendment, say banning devices that can be used to modify rifles to mimic the rapid action firing of machine guns is the only realistic solution. In particular, the NRA names the “bump stock” as the device responsible for the horrifyingly large death count. Bump stocks allow for a semi-automatic rifle to perform as a fully automatic rifle, firing 400 to 800 rounds per minute.

The ban or regulation of modifications such as the bump stock are a much more realistic outcome following the slew of mass shootings, rather than the 2nd Amendment being repealed from the constitution or stricter interpretation becoming mandatory i.e. all gun owners being placed into a “well regulated militia”. However, now more than ever the call for some sort of edit to the frankly outdated constitution is absolutely needs to be answered.

There is a reason the U.S. has more public mass shootings than any other country in the world- we like guns. Not only that, we have a constitutional right to own and operate those guns. As Op-Ed columnist Bret Stephens calls it, “blanket constitutional protection” is unnecessary and has led to only more mass shootings as we are unable agree upon a new way of gun ownership. It protects people like the Las Vegas gunman and so many other so called “madmen”, giving them the constitutional right to own guns that, when writing the constitution, our forefathers never imagined could ever exist.

When they framed the 2nd Amendment, they lived in an age of muskets, which could fire at a rate of one or two rounds per minute. That is proof enough that our country has and is changing, and I am under the opinion that our constitution should follow that pattern. A stricter interpretation or even an amendment added is at this point in time, in the shadow of the deadliest shooting ever on American soil, necessary for the safety of our country. It’s not about politics anymore, it’s about allowing people to leave their house and not worry about being killed at a concert. Banning modifications will help to an extent, but will not prevent horrifying killings like Las Vegas forever. The problem is we need protection from ourselves, which we may not be willing to admit just yet.

image source: pintrest