Sarah Muzzillo
Editor-in-Chief
Gun control has, in recent months, become a hot-button issue. Ever since the devastating Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which left 20 students and seven staff members dead, many views have been debated on how to reduce gun violence. An assault weapons ban, armed guards or teachers in schools, and an expanded background check are just a few proposed ideas. As the first effort to pass gun legislation since Sandy Hook, the United States Senate voted last Wednesday on a bipartisan bill crafted by Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) which would expand the current background check system to include weapons bought online and at gun shows.
Unfortunately, the bill failed to garner 60 votes. Fifty four (50 Democrats, 4 Republicans) senators voted yes, while 46 (41 Republicans, 5 Democrats) chose to vote no. The question is, why would these elected officials vote against a bill, which would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to purchase dangerous weapons? Why are these senators siding with the James Holmeses and Adam Lanzas of the world, and not the 90% of Americans who supported this amendment?
In an appearance on ABC’s This Week, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida stated, “My skepticism about gun laws is criminals don't follow the law. They don't care what the law is, you can pass any law you want and criminals won't follow it, by definition.”
Rubio’s right. Criminals don’t follow the law. But the whole point of implementing stricter background checks is to make it harder for them to break the law. If his argument is true, why do we have any rules in America? Should we dissolve traffic laws because people will speed anyway? A background check could prevent a dangerous person from purchasing a weapon, the way speeding laws keep people from driving too fast. Laws and consequences typically scare potential criminals into following them. Why can’t Rubio and others like him realize this? These politicians have an obligation to bring real change and save countless innocent, precious lives. Why won’t they?
Also, how come Rubio’s argument simply applies to guns? Well, the National Rifle Association has immense power in America. It’s disturbing to think that American senators are so blatantly manipulated by this influential gun lobby, but is there really a strong counter-argument? In no way would this bill infringe on second amendment rights, which does include the words “well regulated.”
Implementing background checks is a matter of national security. Our politicians need to begin acting like leaders and side with the vast majority of America, the way our founding fathers intended and the way a true democracy should operate.
