Should the national crime scene dictate gun ownership?
One of the most awful stories to make it out of the American news circuit is how a local passion for guns can also be responsible for local mayhem in learning centres. It makes you think harder about the relevance of guns in American society and whether or not it is a passion that, as compromising as it sounds, should be curbed in exchange for more safety in your town. Animosity directed towards the American government can often be felt in ripples and reported incidents reveal that this animosity is pouring over into gun-fuelled crimes.
Sadly, that is the truth: gun-related violence is on the rise nationally; it actually results in the deaths of several children, every day, and the lack of awareness of this high level of crime is plainly disturbing. The Newton school massacre should have put that debate on the map, as a concern, that needs to be addressed soon enough but despite the initial interest in introducing some bills that could prohibit owning certain kinds of assault weapons, and root out the need to carry out background-checks, the problem has largely been forgotten.
The presidential elections have been about this a lot: it has been about talking terrorism and about being unable to connect the dots, there, that this can also relate to gun crime. It does not take a lot for a potential suspect to walk into a store and get a firearm and there are no measures in place, properly, even today, to prevent it. Ted Cruz, phrased the San Bernardino shooting as a by-product of constant war in the developed landscape, but I do not believe there is any need to get carried away there. There is no unofficial war anywhere here but gun ownership is now toughly poised to come at a cost: that of a lot of procedures, even though it was simply meant for hunting or protecting your home.