Right to arm citizens an obsolete notion

I don't know if it is the fact that I have elementary aged kids, or if it is just a matter of remembering what elementary school was like, or the fact that it is so close to the holiday season. But the mass shooting of grade one kids in Newtown, Conn. this past Friday is keeping me up at night, and pulling at my heart like none of the all too common mass shootings in the US has done in the past. And my sadness and discomfort is a flickering candle flame when compared to the roaring inferno of grief that must me engulfing the small community of  Newtown this week.

My hope is that heartbreak of knowing that the most innocent among us were targeted in this shooting will be enough to shake the collective consciousness of the American people to a point that they will finally see that they need to abandon their gun culture. Surely, there can be no one able to argue that this tragedy would not have been prevented, or at least much less severe, if guns were not so readily available. Who could possible say that the right to own a gun is more precious than the lives of 6 and 7 year olds?

As with so many things in the US, the protection of this right must surely be based on the massive business that has built up around private gun ownership in the US. The massive scale of the business, as happens, has attracted a very large lobby contingency in Washington, and thus has lead to the illogical and extreme protection of the right to own firearms. The legal arguments seem to evolve for many around the one sentence in the US constitution that addresses the right to bear arms. This has been taken to mean that any American should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. This is so obviously a part of the constitution that has become obsolete.

In 1776, you needed the right to own a musket, because there was no 911 to call or phones to call it on, or no organized police presence.  But in 2012, police are very well organized and you are well protected by civil rights, and in the US, a large military complex. There is a very minute threat of a civil war breaking out in most developed countries, and the sovereignty of the nation is definitely no longer defined by the number of armed citizens you have.

In recent days, many gun death statistics have been quoted, but there is one in particular struck home to me, and I don't even recall the source. In 2009, there was 9,000+ gun deaths in the USA; but only 18 in the UK, 30 in Australia, 170 in Canada, and 142 in France. When you look at the much higher gun control laws in these countries, it becomes apparent that gun control laws do, in fact, save lives. And last time I checked, the sovereignty of France, the UK, Australia or Canada has been threatened because of the lack of guns in every home. I will also wager that home invasions are no higher in these countries either.

President Obama appears to be as moved by the Newtown tragedy as I am, if not more so, so hopefully he takes advantage of the focus this tragedy has put on the need for stricter gun controls, and does something to prevent this type of thing from happening.