This weekend saw yet another mass shooting in the USA, this time in El Paso, Texas, with twenty civilians being murdered and over two dozen injured. It's become the norm to hear the news of a mass shooting occurring in the US, though we tend to only hear about a certain few that have gained enough publicity to make it onto Irish airwaves. Still every couple of weeks we see reports on the evening news or on social media and I'm sure many of us are fed up of the faux outrage and sympathy shown by politicians at this stage.
While politicians dish out thoughts and prayers like they're going out of fashion, no political party in the US seems willing to tackle the issue of gun control. While it may be obvious that many republicans, including the current President of the USA, are anti-gun control, many democrats including former President Obama talked the talk about gun control, but by no means walked the walk.
Under Obama's administration there was a slight tweaking of gun control legislation, but as is evident from all of the subsequent mass shootings, it was nowhere near enough. Many US politicians recognise the power held by the NRA and the pro-gun lobby, and we are yet to see any politician come out and state that they want to radically reform gun laws in a meaningful way. Even with the selection process for the Democratic nominee for next year's Presidential election well underway, there has been little meaningful conversation around gun control.
When I say gun control, I mean controlling who gets to own a gun and other legislation which could reduce the level of shootings, not the outright banning of guns. The second amendment of the US Constitution is crystal clear ", and while this was written two centuries ago, there is meaning to this amendment today. However the problem is that the meaning of this amendment is not definitive and appropriate for modern day weapons. Where do you draw the line with what is defined as "arms", is it a semi-automatic .50 cal or an RPG?
The amendment was written at a time when the US was at risk of invasion, from whom depends on which part of the US. It reads "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."
This militarisation of the civilian population of the US is also part of the reason why gun control hasn't been tackled, it does work as a deterrent for potential invaders. This tactic hasn't just been used in the US, but gun control has been a major part of military history whether to defend a nation or to colonise it. At the outbreak of WW2, Switzerland copied the American model of gun control in order to deter Nazi Germany and Italy from invading their neighbour who had great wealth, but a rather weak military.
It did work, Switzerland remained uninvaded for the duration of the war despite being wedged between two fascist states, and remained uninvaded after the war. What may surprise you though is that like the US, Switzerland kept its liberal gun laws, and managed not to have mass shootings on a weekly basis.
What also may surprise you is that it is not much more difficult to acquire a gun in Ireland, than it is in the US. That may be the only similarity both countries' gun laws have however, as other than obtaining a gun, the rest of Irish gun laws are very restrictive. Ireland limits the amount of ammunition that a gun owner is allowed to possess, magazine capacity is limited, and of course a licence is required per gun, not per shooter. Unlike the US and Switzerland where you can legally buy an assault rifle as a civilian, gun types are restricted in Ireland.
So while the US could certainly reform its gun laws, would it solve the current epidemic? In my opinion Ireland's gun laws would comply with the second amendment, but may not solve the problem. Unfortunately the problem is a more complex and cultural one in the US. You could compare this problem with London's stabbing problem, if the US banned guns would atrocities still take place, though obviously on a much smaller scale?
The US clearly needs to invest in tackling terrorism in its own country, and invest heavily in mental health, though while its focus tends to be on the Middle East and ensuring healthcare remains privatised, I wouldn't hold my breath. The US should certainly look to Ireland when it comes to restricting its gun laws, licencing by the weapon, restricting ammunition and magazine capacity, and revoking the open-carry policy in some states, could be an achievable target to set for a country so plagued by gun crime and terrorist attacks, all they need is a politician willing to stand up.
While politicians dish out thoughts and prayers like they're going out of fashion, no political party in the US seems willing to tackle the issue of gun control. While it may be obvious that many republicans, including the current President of the USA, are anti-gun control, many democrats including former President Obama talked the talk about gun control, but by no means walked the walk.
Under Obama's administration there was a slight tweaking of gun control legislation, but as is evident from all of the subsequent mass shootings, it was nowhere near enough. Many US politicians recognise the power held by the NRA and the pro-gun lobby, and we are yet to see any politician come out and state that they want to radically reform gun laws in a meaningful way. Even with the selection process for the Democratic nominee for next year's Presidential election well underway, there has been little meaningful conversation around gun control.
When I say gun control, I mean controlling who gets to own a gun and other legislation which could reduce the level of shootings, not the outright banning of guns. The second amendment of the US Constitution is crystal clear ", and while this was written two centuries ago, there is meaning to this amendment today. However the problem is that the meaning of this amendment is not definitive and appropriate for modern day weapons. Where do you draw the line with what is defined as "arms", is it a semi-automatic .50 cal or an RPG?
The amendment was written at a time when the US was at risk of invasion, from whom depends on which part of the US. It reads "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."
This militarisation of the civilian population of the US is also part of the reason why gun control hasn't been tackled, it does work as a deterrent for potential invaders. This tactic hasn't just been used in the US, but gun control has been a major part of military history whether to defend a nation or to colonise it. At the outbreak of WW2, Switzerland copied the American model of gun control in order to deter Nazi Germany and Italy from invading their neighbour who had great wealth, but a rather weak military.
It did work, Switzerland remained uninvaded for the duration of the war despite being wedged between two fascist states, and remained uninvaded after the war. What may surprise you though is that like the US, Switzerland kept its liberal gun laws, and managed not to have mass shootings on a weekly basis.
What also may surprise you is that it is not much more difficult to acquire a gun in Ireland, than it is in the US. That may be the only similarity both countries' gun laws have however, as other than obtaining a gun, the rest of Irish gun laws are very restrictive. Ireland limits the amount of ammunition that a gun owner is allowed to possess, magazine capacity is limited, and of course a licence is required per gun, not per shooter. Unlike the US and Switzerland where you can legally buy an assault rifle as a civilian, gun types are restricted in Ireland.
So while the US could certainly reform its gun laws, would it solve the current epidemic? In my opinion Ireland's gun laws would comply with the second amendment, but may not solve the problem. Unfortunately the problem is a more complex and cultural one in the US. You could compare this problem with London's stabbing problem, if the US banned guns would atrocities still take place, though obviously on a much smaller scale?
The US clearly needs to invest in tackling terrorism in its own country, and invest heavily in mental health, though while its focus tends to be on the Middle East and ensuring healthcare remains privatised, I wouldn't hold my breath. The US should certainly look to Ireland when it comes to restricting its gun laws, licencing by the weapon, restricting ammunition and magazine capacity, and revoking the open-carry policy in some states, could be an achievable target to set for a country so plagued by gun crime and terrorist attacks, all they need is a politician willing to stand up.
Comments
Post a Comment