The United States Constitution is one of our country’s greatest assets, and one of the most valuable and important documents in history. However, as much as we all take pride in our founding documents, we must also acknowledge a key fact: They are more than 200 years old. When the Constitution was written, firearms took a full minute to load and fire once, and the concept of a mass shooting perpetrated by a lone shooter did not exist.
It’s time for us to reassess our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
No one is saying citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own guns; however, we have a moral responsibility to limit the purchase of firearms that are designed for mass shootings. The number of Americans killed by gun violence consistently dwarfs the number killed by acts of terrorism. In 2012 alone, mass shootings occurred in Aurora, Colo., Portland, Ore. and Newtown, Conn., each time leading Americans to ask, “What can we do to prevent this from happening again?”
One of the most important things we can do is limit the availability of weapons that are designed specifically to kill people. All three of 2012’s highly publicized mass shootings were committed with weapons designed, fundamentally, to kill quickly and efficiently.
High-powered semi-automatic rifles like the ones used in Portland, Newton and Aurora have no legitimate use outside the arena of war, being excessive and unsuited for home defense or hunting. They exist for two reasons: to satiate gun aficionados and kill large numbers of people.
Yes, limiting the availability of these weapons will offend gun collectors. But it will also hinder those who wish to commit mass shootings. And that’s a tradeoff I’m willing to take.
The age-old argument is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, and therefore to possess assault weapons. But this is a nonsequitur. To the founding fathers, a weapon like the AR-15 was unheard of. And no matter what your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it has limits. An average citizen doesn’t, for instance, have the right to own high powered explosives or antiaircraft weapons. We must create legislation that appropriately responds to the issues created by new technology.
Some say that the issue of mass shootings must be seen in terms of mental health, but this approach is problematic and dangerous. First of all, the psychological variables that lead an individual to commit acts of violence are ambiguous and inconsistent. James Holmes had no history of violent behavior and likely would not have been deterred by legislation directed at the mentally ill.
Laws which target the mentally ill and cast them as aggressors would also have harmful secondary effects; namely, they would risk marginalizing and further stigmatizing a portion of the population that has been discriminated through the history of western civilization.
The mentally ill need to be viewed not as time bombs to be neutralized, but as victims of legitimate illness who must be treated with humanity. Laws limiting the rights of those with mental illness would not only be ineffective at preventing violence, but would also risk undoing years of progress toward a society that is more tolerant of mental health disorders.
In the end, Wednesday’s legislation limiting assault weapons and oversized ammo magazines is exactly what we need and must be defended. As much as collectors will miss their AR-15s, and as much as the NRA will take offense at perceived infringements, we as a country now have an obligation to address the violence that is quickly becoming commonplace. It’s time that American lives became our first priority.
Nathan James is a sophomore majoring in public relations. His column runs weekly on Thursdays.
