The second deadliest school shooting in our nation’s history took place on Friday morning at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Twenty first graders and six faculty members were killed by a mentally disturbed young man who used weapons legally obtained by his mother, who he also killed, in the attacks.
As the country and the Newtown community mourns their loss, many are asking questions about both the state of mental health care in the United States but also about the contribution the weapons the attacker had access to made to how much damage he was able to do. Many have suggested that in order to stop tragedies like this one, and other similar attacks that occurred in the past few weeks, something has to be done.
Advocates of the second amendment, which guarantees citizens the “right to bear arms” argue that access to guns is not the problem, but that a culture of violence begets violent acts. Some even propose that arming more citizens would reduce the number of mass shootings, because perpetrators would be fearful of being shot themselves.
The opposite side argues that when the second amendment was written, no one could have possibly conceived of the amount of damage that a modern weapon could do and that it is unreasonable to allow average citizens unrestricted access to them. Some lawmakers are calling for new legislation that would ban some guns that fire more bullets in a shorter amount of time.
And then there are the various arguments in between. We want to know where you stand on the issue. Vote in the poll and tell if you think gun laws in this country should be stricter, then leave a comment telling us why you stand where you do. Be sure to include your first name, age and state if you’d like your comment to be used on the show.