After becoming a freelance contributor to the online news platform Global Seven News, my first published article is now live, you can find it here. Following its success I have decided to write another article regarding the recent goings on in America and its Ludacris gun laws, which you can read below…
In light of the deadliest mass shooting America has ever seen, many have now turned to the Head of State with the question: ‘Mr President, when is enough enough? How many more people have to perish as a result of gun grime before one realises that nothing good can ever come out of the legal ability to carry firearms with ease?” After the 1992 mass shooting – infamously named the Port Arthur Massacre – in Southern Tasmania, Australia it took just 12 days to implement gun reforms in a country where firearms had long been considered essential. 12 days. Believe it or not, Australia has not seen another mass shooting in the 25 years since. Perhaps now is the time for America to follow in their footsteps and seriously reconsider whether the (very few) benefits of legally possessing firearms will ever outweigh the bad?
The Second Amendment reads “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.” Debated from 1791, right until its final passing and cementing in 2008, the amendment basically allows individuals the right to possess a weapon at home. Unfortunately abused by many, the Second Amendment has fast become a controversial topic, especially recently in the wake of the harrowing attack on Las Vegas this month. It has become a somewhat shield for gun-right advocates and a statute example of the ‘American Right’ but, at the same time, has also become a chilling area of the American Constitution and a growing concern in minds of many. Questions in recent weeks have now turned to – if not for the Second Amendment, would events have played out differently on the 1st of October, or would they have even played out at all?
Steven Paddock – aged 64 and ludicrously described in the media as a caring guy who kept himself to himself but in reality, no more than a common domestic terrorist. The man who open-fired on an open-air music festival on the Vegas strip earlier this month was able to freely carry 17 firearms without question to his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel. After the initial shock and devastation of these horrifying goings on, questions have now turned to the American Constitution. The massacre, now recognized in the media as the ‘Mandalay Bay shooting’ has seen the death of at least 59 people, with a further 527 injured – quickly making this the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. It has since sparked up many controversial causes for debate – how did the hotel not see Paddock as suspicious, why couldn’t security protocols have prevented this? But the one burning question on the minds of most is – when are the laws on gun ownership going to be suppressed in order to make sure nothing like this will ever happen again? It’s a simple question with a regrettably complicated answer. Here at Global Seven News we strive to deliver a fair but truthful news platform that relates to current affairs, so let’s briefly look at why those who support the Second Amendment do not want to see it quashed.
Gun-right advocates claim that the legal possession of firearms gives them safety, upholds tradition and practices their freedom. However gun-control advocates see a wholly different side to it. Gun rights make crimes all too easy to commit, it makes suicide more accessible and it allows one, like Paddock, to commit something as horrendous as a massacre with little planning and preparation – an unsettling thought to say the very least. We do not live in a make-believe land and under no pretenses will crime be repressed if the Second Amendment is repealed, it is however, a perfect place to begin on the long and uncertain road to peace. In reality, what actual harm can come from restricting civilians’ accessibility to firearms? Very little. So why has this not happened already? Why does the Constitution overrule the conversation every time? America now needs to use its voice and spark a debate that goes further than every day conversation, it needs to surface an issue that will be constitutionally recognized and consequently dealt with. Or at least considered. That would be a step in the right direction in itself. The Heads of State need not look in to this issue with a closed mind, but in-fact an open one which may prove much more productive; of course it is a complicated issue with copious amounts of consequences no matter what the result, however I believe it is one that with time and etiquette, can be got right. Why not repeal the 2nd and bring in a 28th? One that promises to impose restrictions on firearms that works in the favor of every American citizen? There’s a long road ahead of America, but a route towards armistice is a route worth taking for all.
Global Seven News