The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony
Print Issues
Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony

A ban on firearms could save American lives

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The trial of infamous Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has reignited emotions and brought to light details about the terrorist’s detestable plan to tear the American people apart — literally. While the bombing was a blatant act of terrorism, there is an important aspect that pertains strictly to the American government and people. During the 15-hour period the Tsarnaev brothers were fugitives, they killed MIT police officer Sean Collier. After the atrocities the two men committed at the finish line, the shooting of a police officer may not initially seem shocking, but this is an important detail that cannot be ignored. The Tsarnaevs used a borrowed gun to kill the police officer, and this is definitely not the first time a gun has been borrowed or stolen in order to commit a felony. It will not be the last if the American people choose to do nothing.

[THE BAR EXAM TESTS LAW STUDENTS ON DETAILS, SHOULD FOCUS ON THE PRACTICAL]

Gun control is an omnipresent topic in American politics. But the people of the United States have the right to bear arms, and gun control is an infringement on this right, right? Congratulations to anyone who believes this sentiment – you clearly passed eighth grade history class. However, what you have failed to do is look at the context and time period during which the Constitution was written.

Things were much different in the late 1700s. Both the people and the government of the U.S. have evolved a great deal since then, and holding the American people to outdated rules that have little applicability in our modern society is absurd. At the time the Constitution was written, “arms” could have meant muzzle-loaded muskets or bows and arrows, so referencing the Second Amendment is actually a very vague and flimsy argument. Also, at the time the Constitution was written, mass shootings by lone individuals with access to firearms had not occurred. Had the Founding Fathers been around when 20 innocent children were shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I am sure they would have rethought their statements.

The problem of mass shootings is close to home. In 2007, Sulejman Talovic opened fire in Trolley Square, killing five people. The pistol Talovic used to murder several people from our community did not belong to him. It had originally been stolen from a citizen in Wyoming, then traded several times before it ended up in the virulent hands of Talovic.

This is how many guns are acquired in the U.S. According to PBS, most guns used to commit crimes are acquired in straw purchase sales. In a straw purchase sale, one person will ask another to buy a gun for them. Another massive source of guns are legal, but corrupt, commercial gun dealers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has limited funds and jurisdiction over the investigation of private and commercial gun dealers, so these dealers can sell firearms to those who are unlicensed with little risk of legal repercussions. Because of this flaw in the American legal system, people with the intention of using firearms to commit crimes will often purchase them through these commercial gun dealers. No matter what, if a person wants a gun to inflict harm on others, they will find a way to get it. That is why I am not proposing the control of guns — I am proposing the ban of guns altogether.

According to the National Justice Institute, 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robberies, and 21 percent of aggravated assaults across the nation in 2011 involved a firearm. If these criminals were not given access to firearms, then law-abiding citizens would not feel as inclined to obtain guns for self-defense. It really is a cycle — the more criminals use guns, the more other citizens want one for protection. In order to stop the cycle of violence, we have to remove guns from the equation completely. Merely controlling their distribution is not enough, because in the end, loopholes will always be present. The only way to fill these loopholes is by abolishing guns for citizens — forever.

[email protected]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Leave a Comment

Comments (0)

The Daily Utah Chronicle welcomes comments from our community. However, the Daily Utah Chronicle reserves the right to accept or deny user comments. A comment may be denied or removed if any of its content meets one or more of the following criteria: obscenity, profanity, racism, sexism, or hateful content; threats or encouragement of violent or illegal behavior; excessively long, off-topic or repetitive content; the use of threatening language or personal attacks against Chronicle members; posts violating copyright or trademark law; and advertisement or promotion of products, services, entities or individuals. Users who habitually post comments that must be removed may be blocked from commenting. In the case of duplicate or near-identical comments by the same user, only the first submission will be accepted. This includes comments posted across multiple articles. You can read more about our comment policy here.
All The Daily Utah Chronicle Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *