Ever since the tragic events in Newton, CT, the most discussed topic has been gun control. On both sides of this discussion, there are valid arguments. On the pro-gun side, there have been discussions of increasing the amount of armed personnel on school grounds, arming teachers, removing gun free zone restrictions and allowing persons whom possess concealed handgun licenses to go into areas where guns are prohibited.
On the anti-gun side, the discussions have been to ban so called 'assault weapons', ban the high capacity clips, increase the waiting period for gun purchases, do thorough background checks on everyone purchasing guns, create a federal database that will detect felons and some sort of database to detect persons with mental illness.
While the second amendment allows us the right to bear arms, how far does that right go? Is it absolute? There are already restrictions on who can possess a gun. There is a background check and waiting period to purchase a gun. How would mental illness be defined? If you feel a little blue and the doctor labels you 'depressed, would that prohibit you from owning a gun? What about the definition of 'assault weapon'? When the second amendment was written, there weren't the types of weapons that there are today. What about the entertainment industry? Do they bear some responsibility for the excessive violence shown in movies, used in music or played in video games?
What's the harm in allowing school personnel being trained in self defense, including the safe use of a gun? To show my age, violence has always been something that I grew up with and dealt with, especially growing up in N.Y.C. in the 1970's. In school, we were taught what to do in case the was a nuclear detonation. We would hide under our desks and the teachers would close the windows. How about the evacuations, weekly, which would be for everything including fire drills and bomb attacks? Realistically, would it have really have helped anyone within the 'zone' from being spared from the initial blast or from the horrific fallout afterwards? We were in the 'zone' and the answer is no. It just made people feel as if it would.
The point in all this is simple, a horrible tragedy happened and 20 little angels were needlessly taken away from the ones that love them so much. Their young lives were ended in such a horrific way, that we desperately want to fix it no matter how it's done, just so that we can all feel better.
With the discussions on both sides of this argument at odds, what true solution will be presented? The fact of the matter is that there is no single solution. You have to address the guns, the people that own them, the criminals that obtain them, the family members that have access to them, the mental health and stability of those wanting to purchase them and the entertainment industry that glorifies them. Banning guns is not the solution, but ignoring it isn't either.
Comments