It was reported that a thirteen-year-old boy was killed by a bullet from an Independence Day party, while he was playing basketball in Indiana. Authorities are now looking to find the culprit who fired the shots that caused the falling bullet to hit the boy.
Noah Inman, a thirteen-year-old boy, was out with a group of his friends to play basketball on the first of July near his Indiana home; he collapsed during the game.
In the fear that the boy might be suffering from some seizure, the other called the emergency line, and the boy was transported to a hospital in the neighborhood. The medical staffs at the hospital examined him and concluded that a bullet had hit him.
He was later stabilized and moved to a Children’s hospital in Chicago where he then passed on the Friday.
The local Police Department spoke with the media about Noah’s unfortunate death; Lieutenant Steve Kellogg said “A lot of noise is usually created by fireworks. But they want to add to the noise by firing shots in the air. It is a difficult thing to track people like that down, especially because gun fire sounds like fireworks. Our Department would like to offer our heartfelt condolences to the family. We wish you peace to bring succor, the courage to live the days and loving memories to forever hold in your hearts. Our hearts are with you in your time of sorrow.”
As is the case in many US city, Hammond, Indiana also has regulations against firing arms within the confines of the city. Although, it is a common thing to fire guns into the air to celebrate across the country.
This is a story that highlights the predicament the country is facing. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which protects the rights of private individuals to ‘keep and bear arms’ for self-defence and protection was adopted centuries ago on December 15, 1971. This amendment to the constitution was promulgated with the realities in place when the founding fathers existed, it was partially due to the English influence present in those days because they had similar laws in place. From the late twentieth century to the present time in this century, debates and academic inquiry have ensued to determine the suitability of the amendment to the current realities. Does the need to protect oneself in peace times with firearms overrule the need to curb the ever increasing amount of casualties from violence perpetrated by the same citizens with legitimate access to the firearms?
This question has plagued the minds of the twenty-first-century leaders and academics. On one side, there is the age old tradition of private gun ownership that is protected by the Second Amendment. On the other hand, a much larger percentage of a much greater population of the citizens now live in cities as against what we had in the late 18th century. These modern city people also have much easier access to powerful firearms better than our nation’s founding fathers could have ever conceived. We are also a society that keeps both a professional law enforcement and state guards that serve as a supplement to the most powerful military in all of human history, all of which was not the case at the beginning of our country.
Now, many citizens feel it is time to revisit the Second Amendment and rewrite it to fit our present realities. It is possible to adapt the adjustment to make sure that law abiding citizens have free access to these weapons while limiting the level of destruction they inflict on our society.
Unfortunately for the nation, many who possesses these firearms have not received proper training on how to use them and the consequences of the use. It seems there is an assumption of the use of common sense in firearm usage and ownership, and this is simply absurd.
Many of the recent polls often indicate that up to eighty percent of Americans voted in favor of some level of reform in the federal common sense and good judgment law of the nation that reflects the current realities of this age. A considerable debate arose in the latter half of the 20th century over the amendment whether it protected the rights of an individual or the collective rights of people to bear arms. Scholars had three competing theories that sort to explain and interpret the intentions behind the second amendment, One of these theories emphasized that the ‘collective right’ did not really apply to an individual right but to the right of states to arm their militia. This means the right to bear arms belong to the state, not the individual. The second theory recognizes the right of an individual to bear firearms but only as a part of a functioning and organized state militia. The third, which is the standard model recognizes the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms. Regardless of the interpretation adopted, it is a fact that countless victims of gun violence exist today in the country.
Noah’s death has raised so many questions about gun laws all over again. It will surely have a bearing on the larger discussion. Deepest condolences to the Inmans, may they find the fortitude to bear the loss.