DANIEL MATHEU – CONTRIBUTING WRITER
ORIGINALLY PRINTED ON NOV 28, 2022
According to the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, American citizens have the right to bear arms. Society as we know it today had just begun to form when the government decided to enact the law in 1791. Considering the state of such a society, it was not
a bad idea back then. However, this article of the constitution remains intact even after 200 years, and recently we have seen how this right provokes massacres rather than prevents them. It seems that no political party advocates changing the constitution to protect citizens. Removing an article from the Constitution requires a long process, but when it comes to saving lives or making money, saving lives should come first. Unfortunately, we have multiple school shootings yearly that murder innocent children and teachers because a “regular” citizen decided to go out and hurt them. However, if the right to carry a gun were more restricted, these events would probably never happen, or happen less. Last year, nearly forty school shootings resulted in the deaths of 38 innocent people and more than a hundred injured.
It was especially shocking that a school shooting happened in Uvalde, Texas, where 22 people fell victim to the violence, one of them the daughter of one of our students. However, although some politicians have positioned themselves in favor of abolishing this “right,” we are still far from achieving it.
The U.S. has one of the world’s highest rates of gun deaths. “As of 2022, 17,202 people have died by gunfire,” according to Gun Violence Archive, a number that has risen sharply in recent years. To put this data into perspective: in 2016, 10.6 out of every 100,000 people were killed by firearms,
a figure well above those of other countries such as France (2.7), Canada (2.1), Australia (1.0), Germany (0.9) and Spain (0.6).
Despite these alarming numbers, some candidates believe that the option is to arm more people so that they can defend themselves. It is a misdirected focus. The solution is not to arm more people so they can defend themselves but to abolish the right to bear arms. If so many guns are needed to protect oneself, how is it possible that countries like France, Canada, Australia, Germany or Spain have such a low rate of gun deaths compared to the U.S.? The answer is simple; they don’t need guns to defend themselves because no one will attack them with a gun.
Many people would say that abolishing this right goes against America’s nature, but it is time for change. A state does not need weapons to protect itself because that is what law enforcement is for, to protect its citizens. Moreover, in many ofthe cases where a person opens fire on civilians, law enforcement is not in a superior position. A police officer attending a shooting finds himself with the same weapon as the shooter, and skill comes into play. However, if they were to restrict the right to bear arms tightly, in most cases, law enforcement would not be outgunned.