Guns are a pretty hot topic. They shoot things. They often harm things. And they have a distressing habit of occasionally bringing harm to those we’d prefer stay safe.
Most recently, there was the shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that left five soldiers dead and has many state governors signing executive orders arming National Guard units and reevaluating security at military recruitment centers.
People who support arming service members have argued, understandably, that our soldiers should not be vulnerable to attacks while on American soil.
Conversely, the thought of armed security and soldiers walking around your local mall recruitment office doesn’t exactly sound like a welcoming atmosphere in a public quarter.
Frankly, improving security across the board on our domestic shores has been a recurring discussion happening on a nearly annual basis with every passing shooting.
It’s unfortunate, but despite years of discussion on the matter spurred by unstable individuals shooting up schools and movie theaters, we’re still getting reports of innocent people getting gunned down as they go about their daily business.
Only this time, the innocents in question might have had the opportunity to defend themselves if they were given a fighting chance.
While beefing up security and increasing surveillance seems to be the standard operating procedures after a shooting, so maybe it’s time to look at things from a different angle.
Our constitution guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, and it’s a right that many have staunchly defended as necessary to the personal security of a U.S. citizen. It’s also a right that was firmly established before the invention of assault rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47.
Once again, many proud Americans like their guns, and certainly feel safer with the knowledge that they’d have a chance to defend themselves against an aggressor. However, how many of us really need an automatic assault rifle to defend our homes?
With the headlines constantly flashing with tales of citizens gunned down, and schools riddled with bullets, one can’t help but wonder if the ability to freely purchase military hardware may be a bit under regulated in light of modern armaments.
Perhaps it’s time to consider an alternative security measure: Citizens deciding of their own accord to regulate the hardware on the market.
Fewer big guns on the market could feasibly mean that everyone has a chance of getting out of situations intact, but it’s not exactly an easy thing to tell people to limit their own rights.
[A version of this story ran on page 7 on 7/21/15]
