Last year, an elementary-school shooting left twenty first graders and six faculty members in Newtown, Connecticut dead after a gunman broke into the school and began attacking, using legally-obtained weapons owned by his mother, who he also killed, before the attacks.
As the country and the Newtown community recover, 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 regular attacks on innocent people, 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 propose that arming more citizens would reduce the number of mass shootings, because perpetrators would be fearful of being shot themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has called for armed guards at every school as a measure to protect children. Their spokesperson, Wayne LaPierre said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” shortly after the Newtown attack.
The opposition 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 as well as increased controls on bullets.
And then there are the various arguments in between. Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, astronaut Mike Kelly have launched a political action committee dedicated to curbing gun violence. President Obama has also released a list of executive orders that he will make as well as a list of policy proposals for stopping gun violence.
Tell us where you stand on this critical issue in the comments.
Gun manufacturers shouldn’t be responsible for someone’s actions. That’s as crazy as suing Michael Jordan for someone getting killed over a pair of Jordans. The company shouldn’t take responsibility of the bad guy’s actions because gun manufacturing were created for positive reasons such as military needs,safety,hunting(if licensed) and high-classed police officers.In my opinion,the one who committed the crime should be sued as well as their family for not raising them correctly.
I think that even though they are taking measures for restricted gun handling people can still get imported guns anyways so really there is no way of stopping the automatic guns from being used for a bad purpose and then there is people who shoot guns for the fun and can’t us more than 15 rounds per magazine that is kind of unfair for people that have no intention of killing people