Death by constitutional freedom

It is no secret that guns are a controversial issue in America, the NRA shoving pro-gun rhetoric-disguised as their “fundamental human right to protect themselves”-down the population’s throat whilst lives are being lost at an alarming rate. With the most recent “deadliest ever mass shooting” (CBS) having occurred in the Parkland high school in Miami, the whole world turns to the state to ask the itching question: since when did money become more important than the citizens’ safety?

Considering the fact that Parkland is the 18th occurrence of a gun being shot on school property, although not all of these cases resulted in deaths or serious injuries: it demonstrates the gun epidemic that is occurring in the United States. The issue is, this crisis has now been happening for several years and as was seen through the 2016 Orlando Pulse shooting or the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. However, once we analyse the timeline of these shootings, it has become quite clear that mass shootings have been on the rise since circa 2009. However, the angle of this article is not to focus on the why of this increased frequency, no, that would be as futile and useless as sending thoughts and prayers: what this article is focusing on is precisely what reform needs to be done and how to implement it to keep the population safe.

Understandably so, a large part of the majority of the American population adamantly supports the second amendment- which for anyone who is unfamiliar with the American constitution is- “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.” (law Cornell) Firstly, let us bear in mind that this was written and signed in 1787 making it one of the oldest constitutions to still be relevant today without any reform; as most history events have taught us, reform and change are key elements to progression. Secondly, this law was written at a time where the population had to bear arms to protect themselves from the government and potential enemies, this is no longer the case. Thirdly, this was signed at a time where semi-automatic assault rifles did not exist- which seems to be the weapon of choice for these mass shootings; shoots 13 rounds per second, 800 per minute. For my non-gun connoisseurs: a round is a bullet, meaning semi-automatic assault rifles fire 800 bullets per minute, and any one over 18 can buy one of these. When the second amendment was written, the gun of choice was a flintlock (please do Google) this could shoot 4-6 rounds a minute, that’s less than one round a second and took twenty seconds to reload by a specialized soldier. You start to see how ludicrous the NRA sounds shoving down the American citizens’ throats the right to bear arms right?

The citizens no longer require guns- what the population needs now is to be safe and this is done through regulating guns and decreasing them. The U.K and Australia are both examples that demonstrate that removing fire weapons is critical for safety, Australia used to frequently have mass shootings and since the Port Arthur incident they banned assault weapons they never had one again.

The United Kingdom had a gun shooting incident in a school in 1991, and the government immediately passed legislation banning guns, and since then no school shootings have occurred.

The solution is clear less guns make people safe, not more- I can guarantee the reason nothing has been done is because the NRA wants to keep making more money, hence their solution to add more guns instead of less. It is common knowledge that less guns make people safe not more, both the United Kingdom and Australia are examples of this but perhaps the counter-argument could be that those are different nations, that that reasoning wouldn’t work in the United States?

Well ironically enough, this same logic does work in the States- hence why guns are not allowed in Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s adored residency in Florida, in fact even military personnel aren’t allowed to carry weapons on base, both instances as they have been deemed “too unsafe”.

Even if you don’t have a specific side on this topic all you have to do is look at the manner in which both sides are arguing their perspectives to conclude which is the rational one. I highly encourage you all to watch the interview with Dana Losch where she claimed that media loves “mass shootings”. What sort of a deranged person would say such a preposterous and disgusting rhetoric this I don’t know but do remember she is the representative of the NRA.

All I say is we need to support the American population, help them fight, revolt protest. Everyone including the NRA knows guns aren’t safe, that mass shooting will continue to occur as long as guns are still being sold. Since the Parkland shooting there have been several incidents, including: Georgia, where a teacher fired a gun inside a classroom, a gun was accidentally fired in Florida and in Ohio where a 7th grader planned a mass shooting but committed suicide instead and finally there was a shooting at Michigan University that left two dead. More guns are not the solution. Tell the NRA their power monopoly is over and that you choose LIFE over MONEY, the world is revolting with America and they aren’t going to stop. NRA we’re coming for you and your GUNS.


Share Darrow

We believe in the free flow of information. We use an Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, so you can republish our articles for free, online and in print.

Creative Commons Licence


You are free to republish this article both online and in print. We ask that you follow some simple guidelines.

Please do not edit the piece, ensure that you attribute the author, their institute, and mention that the article was originally published on Darrow.

By copying the HTML below, you will be adhering to all our guidelines.

Isabel Martins 4 Articles
I am a 21 year old student studying Politics at the University of Surrey

Be the first to comment

What do you think?