The Oregon Shooting And Gun Regulation In The US
Benji Hyer reports on the Oregon Shooting tragedy
W!ZARD News AuthorTweet
Calls for gun regulation have been countered for a number of reasons. To start, important, albeit outdated, 2nd amendment entails the right to bear arms, something which Americans have clung to dearly. Additionally, the National Rifle Association, which provides significant financial backing to the Republican Party, promotes gun provision. The Republicans currently control both chambers in the law-making Congress, therefore any reformation in gun legislature is made unlikely. This has perturbed Obama, as he sought gun control, but can’t achieve it without cross-party support. He gave a 12 minute emotional address this week after the shooting expressing such frustration, adding that not securing gun reform was one of his biggest regrets as President. Nonetheless, he has received criticism for politicising the issue – by encouraging Americans to vote Democrat – and not doing enough to fix the issue in his first two years as President.
We had numerous messages on the show regarding this subject. Many defended the general British stance that America must alter its position. After all, this country – and most other Western nations – made it much harder to purchase guns following a mass shooting, and since then, there’s been few, if not no, repeated sprees. However, we did receive one message from a citizen of Oregon. She wrote: “why should all the normal people be disarmed because some people, such as this killer, are evil? We need to be able to protect ourselves from evil people.” My response can be heard in the clip attached, though let me just make it clear for all readers.
I’m not against gun ownership per sae. Ordinary people argue that they require a weapon for self-defence, and that’s fine, though their logic is based on the fact that a home intruder has a gun too. Why? Because the law allows it. If the intruder didn’t have a gun, the home owner wouldn’t need one either! Even if you dispute my point here, does one man, for example, really need a handgun, rifle, AK47 and sniper? When police raid the homes of these killers, they tend to find countless weapons. I’m no gun expert, but surely you only need a sole handgun to defend yourself, not an entire armoury? We can conclude from this the following: to prevent further mass shootings, conduct better background checks, and most importantly, stop selling multiple guns to nutter.
The case made that the answer lies in supplying teachers or others with guns to defend themselves is nonsensical considering that there are almost more guns in America than there are people already. The solution instead is to fix the issue at its source. If the killer doesn’t have guns, there can’t be an attack, and lives are saved. Therefore, limit provision of arms. Simple.
I respect the opinion of the person who sent in her comment to the show, however, I reverentially disagree. America must see the light, before it’s too late.
Listen to Benji Hyer's response to a listener from Oregon here.