Should the Second Amendment be Modified to Prevent Mass Shootings?

The Second Amendment, in the Unites States Constitution, gives Americans the right to bear Arms. However, has this unalienable right gone too far? When the Second Amendment was first introduced, the most powerful gun was a musket. This rifle had the ability to fire 2 to 3 bullets per minute. As technology progressed and weapons advanced, the most dangerous rifles available to civilians have the ability to fire between 100 and 600 bullets per minute. The advancements of these weapons has increased the efficiency of mass shootings and made day-to-day life more dangerous. Just think about it, these types of weapons are easily accessible (“easily” being used in comparison to the amount of destruction they are able to cause) and could mow down an entire crowd of people within seconds.


There’s no denying that America has a problem with mass shootings; in 2017 alone, there  have been 307. Over the last five years, 1,126 mass shootings have occurred since the Sandy Hook shooting. It’s slowly getting to the point where these tragic events become a norm to society. For example, statistics show that, people in America are “more likely to die due to a gun-related incident than the many leading causes of death combined” (Business Insider).

Screen Shot 2017-12-03 at 12.04.09 AM.png

The Second Amendment should not have assault rifles protected under it. There is no reason why a civilian should own a semi-automatic assault rifle or even be able to modify it, legally might I add, to make it similar to an automatic rifle. It’s simply just not necessary. What could civilians possibly need an assault rifle for? For hunting? Use a hunting rifle or a shotgun. For self-defense? Use a pistol, a Glock for example. The only purpose for an assault rifle is to do its exact purpose: take down a large number of people in a short amount of time.


The functionalist perspective views that guns do two things to society: they can either help maintain order or make it more dangerous. The conflict perspective views that gun control would help decrease people’s power in society. The interactionist perspective sees that gun control wouldn’t be 100% effective because there would still be deviants in society that aren’t going to follow these gun control laws.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s