Smoking Guns

Gun control has always been a smoking hot topic in the States, if you'd excuse the pun. Now is no exception, seeing as the Senate is voting on a new bill concerning ownership and public safety tomorrow (July 22nd). As that date is less than twenty-four hours away, The New York Times of course wanted to get its two cents in before the Senate makes the final decision. Just yesterday an editorial entitled "Gun Crazy in the Senate" was featured under "Opinions" on their website, blatantly arguing against the passage of this newest amendment. 

The author jumps right in by first laying down the basic facts: Republican Senator John Thune (of South Dakota) has introduced a "radical measure" to "nullify the laws of almost every state." (He is presumably speaking to an audience in states that would be influenced by the passage of this bill, such as Alaska.) The author goes on to accuse this amendment of having a great many negative effects. Among other reasons, the author states it would mean more danger for police officers and just a greater risk for gun violence in general. There is also increased difficulty in differentiating between "legal and illegal possession of a firearm" to consider, as well as a possible boost to illegal gun trafficking. The author even goes on to remind his audience of statistics concerning people who had died at the hand of those with concealed handgun permits - clearly if the bill is passed, it is safe to assume that these numbers would only multiply. 

After all the evidence is laid out, he makes a valid point. Laws should ultimately be put into practice to keep the United States safe - but according to the article, allowing this amendment to be passed would mean greater risks, not safety. The author clearly only has America's best interests in mind, and he is trying to be sure his readers understand the graveness of this possibility. Passing the bill would mean a great many dangerous changes in American gun possession, whereas rejecting it would mean that we could at least stay safer, if not completely safe. If the Senate had any sense, they would reject this bill as the author is urging them to, before it is too late.