It's a gun post

I knew I would find myself talking about guns at some point. Brexit may be the most pressing issue in the UK right now, but the topic of gun control laws in the USA certainly casts an imposing shadow over the negotiations currently ongoing between the wantaway Brits and the stubborn Europeans. However much I wanted to stay away from this toxic topic, it is too relevant to brush under the carpet. A post on curling sure is tempting, but I think a more serious post is in order.

The harrowing scenes in Florida last week was a horrific reminder of the policy of gun possession for our neighbours across the Atlantic. The United States are vigilant when it comes to dealing with threats that originate from outside of its borders, as seen, for example, by the American response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that not only would the United States defend itself, but fighting and defeating Japan would 'make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us'. Yet the biggest cause of concern to the safety and wellbeing of American citizens are those that use their 'right to bear arms' to their own twisted ends.

Students being brought out of the school in single file as armed police arrive at the scene

Now, it is easy enough to say that the USA should follow the example of nations such as the UK. In 1968, the Firearms Act was passed, which began the process of proper gun control. The Hungerford massacre in 1987 (17 dead, including gunman Michael Ryan), and the Dunblane school massacre in 1997 (18 dead, including perpetrator Thomas Hamilton), led to two further amendments of the act. These amendments saw the classification of 'prohibited weapons' extended, with semi-automatic rifles and all handguns (except .22) banned. These are just two examples, but after two major instances the government cracked down on firearm possession. It was the only viable form of action.

Researching this post led me to the Wikipedia page 'Mass shootings in the United States'. The fact that an entire page is devoted to this subject is scary enough, but what really sent shivers down my spine was how there is a section titled 'Deadliest shootings', bringing together the 20 deadliest shootings since around 1950. Dunblane saw the same casualty rate as the 1966 incident at the University of Texas, with Charles Whitman firing an assortment of weapons onto the campus and streets below whilst atop the Main Building's tower. That is only 8th on the list, with the recent shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School being one rank lower in 9th. It was not a fun thing to research.

Having already murdered his mother and wife, Whitman ascended the tower to carry out his killing spree

Looking into the University of Texas tower shooting, I aimed to find what action was taken following the loss of all of these lives. All I could really find was the erection of memorials around the city of Austin and the closing of the observation deck of the tower that Charles Whitman had enacted his killing spree from. The government did not take any action to stop any more instances like this one from happening again. The more I looked into these incidents, the more I came to realise that the government really have done little to nothing to stop these events from occurring. The Sutherland Springs church shooting in San Antonio (Texas) last year in November was 'not a guns situation', and was just the act of 'a very deranged individual with a lot of problems over a very long period of time'. Thank you, Mr President, but thoughts and prayers won't keep the people safe.

Thumbs up don't help either

Mental health certainly is a major factor in these individuals reaching the conclusion that the only reasonable solution is to kill. Sometimes, the reasons are political, as shown by Anders Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks. 77 people died through methods such as a car bomb being set off in Oslo and Breivik travelling to a summer camp located on the island of Utøya, unleashing a torrent of gunfire upon the camp residents. Breivik was described as a far-right extremist, seeing his attacks as a way to spread his manifesto 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. In his manifesto, Breivik outlined his distrust of Islam, feminism and 'Cultural Marxism', envisioning a Europe free of Muslims. 

Even though this happened outside of the United States, political and racial views certainly do give motive to the perpetrators of American mass shootings. Yet while action was taken to determine the motives, and assess the mental stability of these individuals, no action was taken to stop mass shootings from occurring. Honestly, it appears that the most action taken by the powers in charge are 'thoughts and prayers'. While it is perfectly understandable to unite the people in solidarity with the victims and survivors, the real cure is gun control. That would be the greatest justice of all.

Students have already taken to the street to make their voices heard

But why do these shootings still occur? In 2018 alone, figures range from 8-18 in regards to the number of school shootings in the US. We haven't reached the end of February, and whether you think it's 8 or 18, that figure is still pretty high for a year barely two months old. That just adds even more frustration to those supporting safer gun laws. So I ask the question again- why the hell are US guns laws so relaxed compared to those all over the world?

I refer back to the 'right to bear arms'. This is a right for the American people to possess firearms, which is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution (ratified in 1791). This was one of the first amendments to the Constitution, with the first ten being known as the Bill of Rights. The amendment, in full, reads:

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'

Simple enough to understand, but what I want to focus on is the historical context (surprise, surprise) and why it's key. First of all, the origins of the United States are found through the settlement of the east coast by English pioneers escaping their homeland due to reasons such as religious persecution. Over the course of the 17th century, colonies grew more numerous, all the while maintaining their link back to the British Isles. In 1689, after the Glorious Revolution in which James II was dethroned and replaced by William, Prince of Orange, and his wife Mary (daughter of the now deposed James), a new Bill of Rights came into effect.

The Dashing Dutchman

It is in this Bill of Rights that Protestants were allowed to 'have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law'. This was included due to the Catholic James II attempting to disarm Protestants, whilst arguing for the maintaining of a standing army. Although this can be seen as a way to separate the powers of government and monarch, or as a way to preserve hunting rights for the nobility, the passing of this particular right certainly did impact the thought process behind the Second Amendment around a century later.

Eventually, after some questionable tax policies, the Thirteen Colonies declared themselves independent and won their freedom in 1783 (after a helping hand from France, Spain and other disgruntled European rivals). Gun possession was common even before the American Revolution, as firearms were necessary to defend themselves from the hostile environment, not to mention the indigenous Native Americans and a possible insurrection from a foreign army. Defending their land was of particular importance to the early pioneers of the USA.

During their fight for freedom, the 'Patriots' (those wanting freedom from the British) organised militia forces known as minutemen, who were basically an armed civilian force who could be ready at a minutes notice. The minutemen were the very base of the American military, and stand as an eternal legacy to the beginnings of the United States of America. Indeed, the National Guard symbol contains a likeness to the Concord Minute Man statue in Concord, Massachusetts, which was where the first battle of the American Revolution occurred. To say that this militia has historical significance is certainly an understatement. 

An eternal reminder to the sacrifice of the colonists

America is certainly a patriotic nation, and a significant amount of pride is taken from their past, such as defeating the British (the most powerful nation in the world at the time) and being a defender of freedom from threats such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. To remember the sacrifice and devotion of the early Americans is a common practice for our Atlantic neighbours. In a time where America is fighting against extremism, a citizen's right to bear arms and defend themselves quickly, much like a minuteman, seems relevant. Whilst there hasn't been an attack on the same scale as the September 11th attacks in 2001, the American populace are determined to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. 

It should be made quite clear now that I am not proposing that all guns should be removed from the public. It is necessary for police to be armed when stationed 'on the front lines' i.e. airports, or ferry ports, for example. One argument I have seen floating around proposes that all cars should be removed since car crashes happen. Fair enough, but precautions have been taken to make sure that crashes, and subsequent accidents, aren't as frequent. Introducing seat belts, headlights, running ad campaigns telling you to not play Pokemon Go while driving have all helped to stop car crashed becoming regular occurrences. Yes, they still happen, but that is usually due to negligence or factors outside of someones control.

The silent killer

Besides, even if the possibility of passing gun control laws in the US begin to gain some momentum, it has to go through the powers that be. According to the US government website (I'm not sure how it all works over there in the land of giant food and shouty politicians, so this is a learning experience for me), it all starts when a bill is introduced to the Senate or the House of Representatives, which makes up the two houses of Congress. Representatives and Senators then meet in small groups to debate the bill, and collect their thoughts on possible changes to the bill. Voting then takes place to either accept or reject the bill, before going to one of the Houses for even more debate. Still with me? Good!

Thhheeennnn the members of one of the Houses of Congress do more debating, and continue to propose changes to the bill being discussed. If a majority vote in favour of the bill (as is typical in democracy), then it moves to the other House for yet more debating and discussing. Both Houses have to agree on the same bill before it moves to POTUS, who has the final call. The Big Cheese can approve the bill and make it law, or has the options to:

• Veto the bill and send it back down. The veto can be overturned if Congress has a 2/3 majority in favour of overriding the veto, meaning the bill becomes law
• Choose to do nothing, with the bill becoming law IF Congress is still in session and 10 days have passed where no answer has been given 
• Use a 'pocket veto' if Congress goes out of session within the 10 days since the President received the bill. This means that the bill is not passed

Politics is hard

Sorry for the long winded explanation, but it's clear how strenuous a task of passing a bill is. But what really is important is who controls the Houses. Much like in the House of Commons, there is a majority/minority, and at the moment the Houses of Congress are owned by the Republican Party. The party very much supports the right to bear arms, and strictly oppose propositions to regulate guns as that's unpatriotic and therefore you must be one of those commies. Their rivals, the Democrats, are in favour of thorough background checks and stricter firearm regulations, so you can see that they're the more sensible of the two. Besides, that's the party that Bernie Sanders was part of during the 2016 election.

My God, what a man

Republican commitment to 'guns for all' means that it gains support from voters who see gun ownership as a fundamental right. The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has 5 million members as of 2017, and will back candidates who shall protect the Second Amendment. From figures collected from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), the NRA spent $4.1 million in 2017 on lobbying (influencing political decisions), and spent just under $50 million on supporting candidates in the 2016 elections. To say that they have power is an understatement.

From all of these statistics on lobbying, coupled with a Republican dominated Congress, it is clear to see and conclude why there is scepticism over the chance of gun regulations being introduced. For a nation as patriotic as the USA, a fear of losing their right to bear arms, one made by the very men who had the bravery to defy British imperialism, would be an 'un-American' procedure. It would be as if introducing gun regulations would make all that was fought for worthless. But be honest; if George Washington and the other founding fathers saw the stats on mass shootings, and the division it has caused in society, would they feel proud that Americans are exercising their right 'to bear arms'?

He's got no time for this NRA bullshit

Once more, I am not saying that all guns should be banned, but to restrict the number of semi automatic rifles that are available to the public would certainly be a step in the right direction. Yet there is a President who believes that mental health is the chief culprit in US mass shootings, rather than the fact that, in the United States, guns are more readily available than a Burger King. Donald has already made his thoughts clear on the recent shootings in Florida, blaming the failure of the FBI to apprehend Nikolas Cruz. In his opinion, 'they are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign'. 

Donald Trump has the perfect chance to leave some sort of positive mark on the USA. Although he is head of a party that is against gun control, he is still the one in charge. It is a chance he is unlikely to take, but to lay down some groundwork would perhaps give one positive to his time in the White House. While he is right in highlighting mental health in influencing these deplorable acts, that is just one side of the story. By making sure that guns, especially assault rifles, are kept out of the hands of those that may use them for violent means, it allows those suffering from mental health to seek help not through the cross hairs, but in a safe and secure environment.

Ben G 😁 xo

P.S. Sorry for this serious post, but the relevancy of this topic at this particular moment in time meant that it would be near impossible not to talk about it. I avoided it in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shootings, so to do so again wasn't really an option. Fingers crossed there will be a happier post next week!

Here are some sleepy otters to put some smiles back on your faces