The Second Amendment was written in 1791, a time when three round-per-minute muskets were the only tools available for protecting your family from criminals and your homeland from the British.  It was a time in which guaranteeing a “well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,” allowed a revolutionary new nation to be born.  Our struggling homeland’s only means of defense were state controlled civilian militias, which allowed this nation to continue.

Today, however, is a different story.  No longer are we hindered with the archaic technology of yesteryear.  In the modern age, where fire rates have increased a thousandfold, magazine lengths rival those of the their barrels, and where in some states, guns outnumber people, practices need to change.

Strictly interpreted, the words of the Second Amendment would hold that firearms in the hands of the everyday Americans are unnecessary today, as the United States’ defense no longer lies in the hands of the citizen militia, but by a well-trained, expansive military which Americans taxpayers spend nearly one trillion dollars on every year, trusting that they carry out the duties necessary for national security.  Aside from sport and, arguably, self defence, there aren’t any legitimate uses for guns.  This alone should take semi-automatics out of the equation.

It shouldn’t take a few tragedies to start the gun control debate, and it really hasn’t, at least, not amongst the American people.  There has been overwhelming support among Americans in favor of banning extended clips and semi-automatic weapons, and for requiring all potential buyers to register with a background check, even at gunshows.

In Congress, however, we see something different.  The representatives in Washington are not acting as the voices of the American people.  As always, it’s all about the money, Lebowski.  We have highly influential interest groups like the NRA spending millions of dollars every year in campaign contributions in to keep the manufacturers rich.  They issue the talking points that get tossed around by Republican Party and their pundits: Arguments like “If we ban guns like drugs, criminals will still find ways of getting them.”  The only difference is, anyone can make or grow drugs in his own backyard, whereas building a firearm requires the labor of thousands of factory workers and ammunition makers.  And Then there’s the old adage, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”  Maybe, but they certainly make it a heck of alot easier.

It has been recently expressed that some faculty members have brought up the topic of arming teachers with firearms in order to improve security at St. Ignatius High School.  Unfortunately, this is not the best way to handle security.  “More guns,”  oddly enough, isn’t the solution to reducing and preventing violence.  In the chaos and confusion of a shooting, having more guns would cause more harm than good.  Shootings happen without warning, and no one can prevent the first shot, but following proper lockdown protocol and alerting the authorities is the right way to handle the situation.

Arming every teacher will amount to nothing but permanent fear and panic among the students, parents, even if they are given training, and even the teachers themselves would feel nervous with their new responsibility.  Despite our trust in the faculty and our fellow students, we can never be too sure of what might result, accidental or intentional,  when over 100 people in one place are armed 5 days a week.

Almost everybody is familiar with the gun rights debate. And since no doubt you have heard someone arguing on behalf of gun freedom, you have heard the overused argument of Constitutionality based on the 2nd Amendment. This is by no means a bad argument, as our government has always given us the right to bear arms. But for the sake of providing a fresh viewpoint, I am going to stick to the concrete facts and statistics that prove gun rights are necessary for the safety of the everyday citizen.

The fact is that legal guns are used far more often to protect oneself and one’s property than for crime. According to the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime 989,883 times a year, and there are an average of 162,000 times annually when guns are used  to save a life. To put this in perspective, there were 11,078 domestic gun-related homicides in the 2010. And on a larger scale, not only does gun control restrict civil liberties, but it  increases crime. Homicide rates in the United Kingdom have skyrocketed 15% since a 1997 ban,  while the citywide pistol ban in Chicago increased handgun homicides by 40%. On the other hand, murder rates in Texas and Florida dropped 30% after right-to-carry laws passed.

School shootings may be the most commonly cited argument for gun control, but instead of seeing these attacks as a cause for stricter control, I see it as all the more reason for responsible, stable people having firearms, in particular teachers. The so-called lockdown protocol in reality is about as effective as hiding under a desk during a nuclear blast. A teacher in every classroom, armed with an AR-15, is the only guarantee of the safety of their students. Being properly trained, they will be the first responders to any attack. As well, any would-be attacker would think twice before entering what would  essentially be tantamount to an armoury. Not only will these precautions ensure the safety of all in a school in the event of an attack, but I am sure the cold, trained eye of a newly equipped teacher will alone increase the productivity of students on the whole.

Basic logic reveals the flaw in gun prohibition arguments: Why would criminals, who by definition break laws, arbitrarily decide to follow unenforceable regulations? The only people who follow gun control laws are god-fearing, law-abiding citizens. Worse, the history of federal prohibition with alcohol during the 1920s and hard drugs now shows that criminals inevitably will take over the gun-market. A gun ban just creates more profit for organized crime and fosters further acts of violence on a larger scale. Finally, as appealing as stricter background checks may seem, the fact is that ineffective legislation solves nothing –  the famously restrictive Brady Law caused no reductions in homicide or suicide rates. Even if background checks stopped criminals or the mentally unstable from purchasing guns legally, it does not and cannot stop one from obtaining a gun illegally.

Gun control at any level is not only wrong but ineffective. More gun regulation increases murder-rates, while loosened restrictions prevent violent crime. Any gun ban only harms the citizens following the law, while providing a new source of income for organized crime. Even stronger background checks are about as effective as a parent putting a pie beside a child, politely requesting they ignore the dessert, and then walking away. Citizens, not criminals, follow laws.