This article is discussing events at the Oregon college shooting that happened within the last week. It was a national affair, and everyone was talking about it. What most do not know, is that another shooting occurred just hours before the event: a man had shot 3 people in Florida. This article discusses the tragedy of the "normality" of shootings these days. In the US, mass shooting are occurring more and more often to the point of where not every one is even made a national issue (such as the Florida incident). According to the FBI, the number of "active shooter" incidents rose in frequency between 2000-2013 (between 2007-2013 there was an average of 16.4 average shooter events each year, compared to an average of only 6.4 each year between 2000-2006).
This issue cause me to come back and question the terms of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). With the increase in shooting events, I personally think this calls for a reconsideration of the terms of the law. It should not be easy for just anyone to have access to a gun. This puts the entire nation at risk, as we have seen happen in the past decade and a half. Another solution could be to reconsider the gun regulation in the United States, and to restrict it in some way to try and prevent further shooting incident (frequency) increase.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34428946
That is very true. Should the people handling the gun be blamed, or should we trace the blame back to the government who so loosely let us legally own them in the first place? I personally think it shouldn't matter who holds the gun, but rather what laws the government is willing to oppose so that guns don't fall into the wrong hands in the first place. That might sound a bit blunt, but considering the fact that many killings--including those accidental--have happened on account of being allowed to carry weapons just shows that we need to cut the cord at the root of the problem.
ReplyDelete