October 1st, 2015.
Yet another gun mass-shooting, the 994th in line, takes place.
The official press release from President Obama was expected to follow the well worn-out procedure of sending their thoughts and prayers to the victims’ families and letting them know that justice will be served. (As if!) However, things took a different toll that day in Washington DC.
“Somehow, this has become routine!” the President exclaims.
The debate regarding gun laws in America is not new nor unjustified. However, even after 994 massacres, in just about 3 years, the second amendment and what comes with it remain untouched. The plea for change by the President, the scrutiny from the international floor and the cries for help from suffering civilians have not been proven enough to convince the Senate that the time for change is, if not now, perhaps long foregone.
Surely a constitution is not a document that can be morphed and changed into different formats after every critical comment, however a -what can only resemble- religious faithfulness to it can be proven equally catastrophic. This may go without saying for some, but let us not forget that the constitution of the United States of America was written in 1787, at a time period when owning slaves and shooting people like flies was just the norm. So why do we choose to anachronistically embrace this part of a document so eagerly and spew vitriol at each other over for daring to question a threadbare paper scroll when clearly, it will not – it cannot – serve the purpose it was originally intended for?
At this point, appealing to the long-lost humanitarian sentiments of hardcore Republicans will simply not suffice. The human casualties, by far, outweigh any sort of inadequate excuse of self-defense brought to the table and the knee-jerk arguments of “guns can be supplied in more sinister ways by the truly malicious” and that this “will only harm the law-abiding citizens” are not sedative. Statistics show that states with the most gun-laws have the least mass shootings. So what is it that prevents the United States of America from seeing light at the end of the tunnel?
The most obvious answer lies in the Republican Congress. Especially, combined with a Democrat President, whose power falls short, the Congress makes no substantial motion to demonstrate a willingness to end this slippery slope. The President’s cries for change, went unheard and the civilians’ lives, remain at stake.
What is also often times neglected, but nevertheless sheds light on the reason why guns are so heavily endorsed in the United States, is the existence of a massive 6 billion dollar worth high-profit market, selling weapons to the people as if they are candy. As of now, there are 209,750 number of jobs related to the firearm industry in 2012, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which estimates that $9.8 billion in annual wages are earned annually. And it doesn’t take an economist to paint the picture for you on this. When money is involved, things get complicated. It is very evident then, that the passionate pro-2nd amendment lobbyists, are questionably benevolent. They want to fight and defend, our fundamental right to bear arms that just happens to serve corporate interests. For our own good, as always. (But let’s not question their intentions, that’s what crazy, communist, conspiracy theorists do! We know better than this.)
The recent attacks in Paris however, sparked a new round of worldwide cognitive dissonance. Donald Trump almost cheered in triumph expecting to be glorified for-as eloquently as ever-stating the obvious: “Nobody but the bad guys had guns.” And this leaves us once again in a troubling whirlwind of the chicken and the egg enigma: “Are more crimes committed when people have more weapons, or people have more weapons when more crimes are being committed?” Opinions on this may differ, but there is certainly something we can all agree on: in a country where you are only deemed capable enough to consume alcohol after the age of 21, it seems that getting your hands onto a killing machine at 18 is, if anything, paradoxical.