The issue of gun violence is, unfortunately, prominent in our society today. We asked Apopka High School students to share their thoughts on this issue. The responses we received are printed below.
Gracie Darlington, Senior:
Movement toward gun control and legislative reform is a subject that evokes extreme emotion. Despite the polarizing nature of the debate, I see the issue as neither red nor blue, conservative nor liberal, but rather an issue involving humanity. Regardless of one’s party affiliation, children in our schools are in danger with the current legislation in place surrounding gun control. For the sake of future generations of students, along with current ones, I stand with Parkland, and I believe that lawmakers should actively legislative gun reform.
Legislation proposed in the wake of the tragedy in South Florida has not asked for anything that would compromise individual rights as an American citizen. Requests in the movement towards change include a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles or military grade weapons, raising the legal age to own, enforcing stricter background processes that include and cover the purchasing from private sellers, etc. The avocation for reform in policy is not calling for citizens to give up the right own a weapon and defend themselves. Acquiescence is not being asked of them because that would impose upon their freedom, protected in the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America were foundational in qualifying the Constitution itself, designed to protect the liberty of Americans. With the second amendment within them, granting citizens the right to bear arms, I do not believe that that right will ever be completely compromised, the reality of no guns at all unlikely to happen under a democratic United States. The right to bear arms can remain protected under reform. Legislation is necessary because personal rights are primary until the consequences of those rights come at the expense of another’s. When the right to own a semiautomatic weapon comes at the cost of 17 civilian’s rights to carry out the rest of their lives, gun rights become immediately secondary.
Political reform in response to what happened in Parkland is not trying to legislate morality. It is said that the gun didn’t kill all of those people, the man holding the gun did. While Nikolas Cruz is responsible for the occurrence of bloodshed, the type of gun in his hands is responsible for the degree of bloodshed. I understand and agree with the notion that if an individual is “evil”, “corrupted”, “mentally disturbed”, etc. to point of premeditated mass murder, that they would likely find a way to carry that out regardless of legal obstacles. But the point is, right now, there are little to no legal obstacles for the prospective shooter to jump. The goal of the proposed legislation is to make it as hard as possible for a mass shooting, at this degree or any degree, to happen again. They may go to the measures necessary to obtain the weapon illegally, but our responsibility is to do everything within our power to stop the possibility of senseless killing.
This not a debate for democrats to republicans, but instead the people to our lawmakers. We the people must decide and demand for change, saving our own lives. This is not taking away the right to own a gun, but instead implementing safer policies for how those individual rights are carried out, not allowing unstable and unsafe individuals to own weapons capable of this kind of destruction. This not legislating morality or solving deep issues with laws, instead this is legislating safety for the sake of our children, and their families, and all Americans. This is change. This is reform. So that this never happens again.
Reanna Rochester, Senior:
It amazes me that the people who have found their way into power are still unaware that fighting fire with fire will never be an effective solution. With the appearance of more and more mass shootings across the country with military-grade weapons such as assault rifles like the one used in the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High, they seem to believe that the only plausible solution is more guns. They’re not seeing any other way to approach the problem, especially not to try to limit the accessibility of these deadly weapons.
Donald Trump, for example, will point at absolutely everything besides even the vague possibility that assault rifles should be harder to obtain. In his statement to the press after the tragedy at Stoneman Douglas, the word “gun” was never even mentioned. He’ll make it about mental illness (which he of course plans to realistically do nothing about) or only about school safety (which isn’t the only issue because mass shootings are taking place in areas like concerts and night clubs, just to name a few).
School safety should of course still be a prioritized issue when it comes to the status of assault rifles, which is why this generation of student should use our invaluable weapon: our voices. To speak up with intelligent arguments about our solutions and exactly how we feel about the inaction in our legislatures. I think we should follow the example the students from the Parkland community are setting, and use our voices to be the change we want to see in the world. In other words, let’s use our First Amendment rights to put an end to the gun violence brought on by unrestricted Second Amendment rights.
Zachary DuBose, Senior:
Ever since the tragedy of Stoneman Douglas High School and even before then there has been a lot of talk about changing gun laws and having government officials step up and do something about it. Honestly, as long as it has been in effect there is no problem with owning a gun and everyone is should be allowed one but in my opinion, there should be an increase in the age you should be able to own one instead of being at the age of 18 where you are allowed to possess a firearm from a handgun to a rifle. Yeah, it may cause an outburst to people fascinated by firearms, but sometimes it’s necessary to put others in front of us and wants over needs. We need a change in this because even if it is a small change in decreasing the rise of school shootings that change still means a lot as it could lead to a decrease in losing the life of a student or staff involved in a school shooting. People are more concerned about underage drinking than students who show obvious signs of being mentally ill and about to do something that could take away the life of many loved ones. There is a distinct difference between drinking alcohol at the age of 21 and owning a gun at the age of 18 and frankly it is quite asinine. I’m not trying to state that the age of drinking alcohol should be decreased or increased, but that we need to put the more important matters in priority and do something that will save the lives of many people. If you do end up buying a gun and having children later don’t let them find out about it not knowing it’s a dangerous weapon and then “experiment” with it, teach them what the purpose of the firearm is and what it should and shouldn’t be used for. Furthermore, before someone is sold a gun there should be some sort of background check based upon criminal records, and if there were any mental illnesses listed in the background information they should not be able to purchase a gun until a certain period of time passes or until they are cleared by police or medical professionals (depending on if they have a past criminal record or some serious mental illness). Overall, the main concern for gun laws is to change them so that the wrong people can’t purchase guns decreasing the chance of not just school shootings happening but crime rates involving shootings as well.
Charlie Ahrens, Senior:
On Wednesday, February 14th, terrorist Nikolas Cruz slaughtered 17 high school students with a legally bought AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Immediately following the attack, Americans split to decide what or whom was to blame. While some argued that our legislation was at fault for allowing this to happen in the first place, others suggested that it was the individual himself who had mental health issues.
Those defending the current regulations argue that the second amendment to our constitution protects the individual’s right to own any weapon they please. “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.” While the meaning is clear that our founders wanted people to be able to protect themselves, the loose regulations of this amendment do not protect the civilians who do not choose to own a gun. Because just about anyone can purchase these weapons of mass destruction, others are being hurt.
If we look at the history of the second amendment, we see that their prototype of what “arms” may be is completely different from how “arms” exist today. The common rifle back in 1791 was only capable of firing a single shot every few minutes. Today, the AR-15 (most common weapon in shootings) is capable of slugging out 800 a minute. The context of guns has completely changed, and that’s why this amendment needs to be updated. Our country was built on the grounds of change over time, so assuming that this specific amendment should apply forever is ludicrous.
Another issue our country is currently facing is the lack of our government listening to the public. Around 100 reasonable gun control bills have been shot down by Capitol Hill. The people defending those who wrote the amendment fail to acknowledge that those same founding fathers also believed in changing the constitution over time to avoid tyranny- the reason why we became our own country in the first place. Our government right now is fueled by interest groups who influence our politicians and legislation. One of these is the NRA, also known as the National Rifle Association of America. Because of the millions of dollars the NRA is pumping into our leaders, change is being prohibited. Our lawmakers and enforcers are twisted into doing the NRA’s bidding and we are reverting back to Old England where money was driving the monarchy to oppress the people.
Every day we continue ignoring the suffering that has gone on due to failed legislation. We are travelling back in time to when we needed to claim our independence in the first place. History repeats itself, and these shootings will continue to take the lives of our brothers and sisters until the issue is solved from the inside out. Our government needs to worry less about their beloved interest groups and worry more about the lives of the American family.
Saypadia DeSaussure, Senior:
The best thing about America is often understated and ignored. Foreign disputes are not settled in combative war on our soil. Such a fact would lead one to believe that occurrences of mass shootings are infrequent, but the frequency in which they do occur has distraught parents and taken the lives of the young. The second amendment right to bear arms is an outdated mandate, that holds a substantially small and irrelevant function in today’s society. During the times in which it was written, men were expected to run into their houses, grab a gun, and protect the “land of the free”, if there were ever to be a foreign threat. Cheerfully speaking, the men of America are no longer bound to such an expectation. Our military’s legitimacy resounds throughout all those who are conceived as competent. This has allowed the 2nd amendment to change in meaning. A change that has matched the change in times. A change that can no longer be disregarded and must change the way in which combative weapons are distributed.
Grace Garza, Senior:
My belief on gun control is that if there is a gun around, I want it to be control. We live in a country that gives us the freedom to express our feeling for certain subjects. But when it comes to gun control we can’t agree on anything that would stop any further damage to the innocent lives that are being taken away. Roughly 16,459 murders were committed in the United States during 2016. Of these, about 11,961 or 73% were committed with firearms, statistically showing firearms don’t lead to anything good.
We say we have it for self-defense, but if shooting into a crowd of people that you have had no interaction falls under that category, then that shouldn’t be a valid reason. You shouldn’t even have to defend yourself if the government did its job. Police officers should have more power to enforce more legal actions when it comes to firearms. The recent tragedy that happened to one of our Florida public schools should have been more of an eye opener to our government. But it only led to an apology from them, thinking it will replace the empty space of the senseless lives we lost.
So the students took matters into their own hands by staging a walkout that has taken place at different Florida public schools to show that this is a matter that shouldn’t be brushed off until another horrible tragedy once again brings more light to it. People will argue about how guns don’t kill people, people kill people– seems like such a one sided saying. We have listened to it and we have put barriers for people to not get the object to go forth with their malicious thought of hurting someone else, but they seem to find a loop hole to go around it, either going to a gun show, making their own, or buying it from someone that did pass the background check. It has been shown over and over that this method it not effective it. People can live without having a firearm in their home just like the rest of the world. Guns are the cause of the much of the violence that is happening in a country that is consider to be the land of the free but these days it doesn’t feel like I even have freedom to go to school peacefully without double checking my back making sure no is behind me ready to end my life.
Jasmine Cordosa, Senior:
Gun violence should be handled by placing stricter laws on attaining guns, which clearly would be enacted by legislators. Raising the age to buy a firearm to 21 does not completely solve gun violence, as guns can still be sold privately without a background check and even then, guns can be bought and then given to someone else with ease.
Americans must wake up and realize that sacrifices must be made in order to save lives. When it comes to statistics, having a gun alone in a household increases the chances of someone being shot or killed. Speaking of statistics once again, in other countries such as Japan, you must undergo strict steps in order to attain a gun which is why the country has little to no gun violence which certainly is the complete opposite of America.
It is important to know not to fight fire with fire by adding more guns to fight against “bad guys” with guns because it’s not a smart nor well thought out solution. The solution is to keep guns from getting in the wrong hands by restricting firearms from being sold privately, keeping background checks, and even raising the age to 21.
Even though the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, that right can be restricted to keep others safe. When you look at it, the 1st Amendment has restrictions, so why can’t the second? Also, when it comes to protests and the whole purpose of them, this is my take on them: the sole purpose is to let legislators know we as teens are paying attention and as we grow up and become able to vote, we have the choice to take them out of office by not voting for them. It is very easy to access Google and see which legislators accept offers from the NRA which of course, their popularity is soon to wane.