The massacre at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas - with 59 people killed and 527 injured in what has been called the worst mass shooting in recent American history - has rekindled the debate on access to firearms in the United States. President Donald Trump has kept silent on the issue, while the titles of the major arms manufacturers have jumped on the stock exchange, in anticipation of a sales boom (as had already happened following the massacres of Orlando and San Bernardino).
Whenever such an episode of violence occurs, the arms lobbies defend themselves by saying that it would be inappropriate to address the issue in the aftermath of such a painful event. At the same time, these massacres do not seem to shake those who claim the right to own a weapon to defend them - indeed, the consensus around the possession of weapons would have risen in the last 20 years, since the mass shootings began to make more news.
According to Trump, the massacre in Texas was not to be associated with the circulation of weapons, but the killer was an ex-soldier expelled from the Air Force for an episode of violence in the family. How many deaths still on the altar of the lobby and the 2nd amendment?
Every time there is a massacre like that of Las Vegas, or in the Baptist church in Texas, American public opinion divides. On the one hand, those who would like to limit the sale of weapons as much as possible and, on the other, those who believe that it is a constitutional right to have one. Prohibiting them seems an unattainable goal. The second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to own a weapon. It was written in 1791 and, perhaps, in this era, it even made sense. We are talking about a nation born in the blood of an independence war that had just ended. So the fear of a possible return of the British army meant that it was necessary to specify that having a well-regulated weapon was necessary for the security of a free state.
Whenever a politician or association proposes more restrictive legislation on the possession of firearms, politicians and pro-arms lobbies, such as the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), appeal to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which says:
Since a well-organized militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of citizens to hold and carry weapons cannot be infringed.
The critics, however, point out that this is an article adopted on December 15, 1791, in decidedly different times, with very different weapons: then, muskets that fired at most 2 or 3 shots per minute; today automatic weapons that can even shoot 100 rounds per minute.
Centuries have passed since then, and yet this amendment is the banner behind which lovers of firearms are hiding. Because to understand the culture of weapons that exists in the States, we should forget what we think about the topic. Australian comedian Jim Jefferies, during one of his shows, gave a long monologue on firearms in the States, describing how in Australia after a massacre, the purchase of weapons was prohibited and how the Australians had accepted this decision with serenity and awareness. In America, however, it tells of how after the Sandy Hook massacre, where many young children died, the government said, “Maybe we could get rid of the bigger guns? “ And he concludes by saying that Americans, after all, like guns too much.
In July 2008, the United States Supreme Court provided a definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment. The right to own a weapon is inviolable like voting and freedom of expression. By declaring the District of Columbia law unconstitutional and banning Washington's law prohibiting the keeping of a self-defense gun at home. The relationship between weapons and the inhabitants of the United States has deep roots and, leaving aside the concept of individual freedom, is a billionaire business. So it is quite unlikely that its sale could be banned overnight. Indeed we would say that it is impossible the lobby influencing congressional decisions to have great power, especially economic, due to financial aid from the arms industries. So you could work on the rules for the purchase, but even in this case, the road seems to be uphill.
In an episode of the Simpsons, Homer decides to buy a gun to protect his family and, after the seller has also offered him a weapon to shoot down the police helicopters, he has to wait five days for checks to be made. After that time, the seller says that having been in a psychiatric hospital, having significant alcohol problems, and having punched former President George Bush, he had been labeled " Dangerous subject “And therefore cannot have more than three weapons. This scene represents and summarizes one of the substantial problems of the sale and trade of firearms. A gun alone cannot kill anyone; there must always be someone ready to pull the trigger. And it would be important, if you cannot ban the trade, at least be sure that it does not end up in the hands of someone ready to rent a room in Las Vegas and shoot the crowd massacring and injuring people. Or not even give a slingshot to an ex-soldier dismissed for mistreatment of his wife and son capable of entering a Baptist church, during a service, and ending the lives of innocent people because otherwise freedom is confused with stupidity.
Arms, the problem that the United States does not want to recognize. But, they should recognize that problems as each year, hundreds of people killed due to gun shootings in America. The government should review the second amendment of the United States Constitution in order to save the lives of common people. It seems that it is difficult to apply the gun control in the United States of America as people are finding ways to own firearms and guns from arms dealers if you have some criminal record. So rather than approaching certain groups in order to eliminate their gun ownership, there should be a regulation in effect that limits possession to all people.