On November 5, 2017, 26 people were killed in a Texas church by a man with a gun.
The government works very hard to protect us from pollutants in the air and water; we search for answers on how to protect professional football players from concussions; we constantly strive to make automobiles safer for those that drive them; we regulate the amount of alcohol one can have in the bloodstream before being declared legally intoxicated and unsafe to drive.
In other words, Congress and regulatory bodies have worked hard to make the environment in which we live a safer place to live, work, and play.
However, the federal government seems unwilling to protect the citizens of the United States from gun violence. Why? The Second Amendment is usually given as the reason.
For much of our history we have had gun control measures. However, in only the last half of the 20th century that changed with new interpretations of the Second Amendment.
We are allowed to own guns without limits on the number or the amount of ammunition that can be fired from the weapon. We own guns not only for sport hunting but also guns specifically designed to kill fellow members of the human race.
There are violent events that even the government can’t protect us from -- volcanoes, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, etc.. Are guns considered disasters we can’t do anything about?
When will it become the appropriate time to give the public the same protection from gun violence that we protect the public from auto accidents, the environment we live in, the homes we reside in, and the offices we work in, the food we eat, and infectious diseases we are exposed to.
More like this story
- Group thinks teachers should be allowed to carry guns
- Commentary: A new movement for sensible gun laws?
- Ducey: Protect Second Amendment; don't 'politicize' Florida school massacre
- Letter: Government should pass federal gun safety measures
- Giffords urges lawmakers to enact reasonable gun restrictions