.png)
Last month, the nation witnessed the two back-to-back mass shootings in Uvalde, TX and Buffalo, NY, causing another surge in awareness around the topic of gun control.
As we have seen, this issue is nothing new. Mass shootings and gun violence have only seen an increase in recent years, and this trend in likely to continue. In 2020, 14 shootings took place during the span of five months in Alameda alone. In January of this year, there was an armed robbery attempt in Alameda’s Monkey Thai location.
Many of my fellow students at Encinal High likely recall the multiple times there have been shooting threats made on our school. Thankfully, none of these threats were carried out, but the fact that we even need to worry tells us enough.
However, something about the recent and rapid shootings has pushed the discussion around gun control to a breaking point. On June 23rd, the Senate passed a piece of legislation with the purpose of preventing potentially dangerous people from accessing guns. The question is: Will it be enough?
Some argue that the only way to effectively end gun violence is by repealing the 2nd Amendment which, since the creation of this country, gives Americans the undeniable right to carry arms.
The second amendment was created in a time when the world was fundamentally different than the one we live in today. It is important to remember that the Constitution, along the rest of our country’s foundational structures and laws, were created when the country was a small colony rebelling against massive empires without even a standing army as protection. People had to hunt for themselves, making a gun a necessity in any functional household. Recall the racial setting of the United States as well: As white colonists encroached on the land of native peoples, skirmishes became common. These same white people owned enslaved people as well, and how else would these stolen people be kept in line if not with the threat of a weapon that could kill them in seconds? So, as a result of these many influences, the 2nd Amendment gave the public the right to bear arms as individuals.
Today, we no longer need to hunt for food or individually protect ourselves from foreign invasions, and even if we had to, we most certainly wouldn’t be doing it with the same weapons as early American colonists, as guns during the ratification of the 2nd Amendment were primitive compared to present-day weapons. They fired a single shot in one round, and shooting three to four bullets per minute was considered a feat. To reload, they required adding gunpowder, using a ramrod to align the bullet, inserting the ramrod back into the gun, all before taking aim to fire a single bullet. Today, you can buy a gun that can fire up to 100 rounds per minute at your local Big 5. Technology like this was incomprehensible to people when the 2nd Amendment was established.
Encinal and Alameda High students held a joint walkout on June 3, 2022 (Images via Kelly Quach).
The debate over gun control reforms indicates an even larger problem: Our country has grown out of its first set of clothes. Things like the 2nd Amendment don’t apply to our lives the way they applied to the lives of our Founding Fathers. The electoral college was created in part because leaders at the time firmly believed that the common folk (especially those in rural areas) lacked proper resources to be fully educated, a problem that has since been solved in the internet and information age we find ourselves in. Furthermore, the internet poses new questions around freedom of speech, a right protected by the First Amendment. On the internet, nearly anyone can post just about anything they want, providing a perfect environment for misinformation and radicalization to run rampant (which, by the way, could be part of the reason as to why gun violence has been increasing in recent years in the first place). When democracy—and lives—hang in the balance of what people choose to amplify online, at what point do we decide to clamp down on internet regulation, potentially limiting the people’s free speech as a result?
Previously, we may have thought of making changes to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as impossible, but the Senate’s historic decision to pass the largest firearms regulation bill in 30 years changes things.
The bill not only requires for further background checks and the removal of firearms from those who may be considered a threat, but also includes $15 billion in funding mental health programs and school security measures.
While this accomplishment is monumental in the effort to end gun violence, this negotiation is far less than what its advocates originally proposed. By introducing $15 billion for funding in both mental health support and school security, it leaves ambiguity as to how much is being invested in each area, and strengthening school security merely places a band-aid on a wound that has been festering for decades. Even more, the Senate’s decision took place just hours after the Supreme Court blocked a New York law proposing restrictions on who should be legally allowed to carry a gun, showing how deep the division on gun laws runs through our government.
Although the fight is far from over, this marks one of our first steps in the right direction. Even after the recent horrors of Uvalde and the Tops supermarket, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Comments