San Bernadino and The Gun Control Debate

Eric Hsieh, Staff Writer

On December 2, 2015, two shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire on innocent people in the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino, California. Fourteen people were killed and twenty-two were injured. This tragic mass shooting produced a face off on the gun control laws in the United States.

The fact that Farook and Malik could obtain the weapons they had at their house and the weapons they used in the shooting brings up much debate on gun control. The attackers used two .223-caliber semi automatic rifles, two 9mm caliber semi-automatic pistols, and constructed numerous pike bombs in their house. Both sides of the gun control debate certainly have their merits.

The 2nd amendment gives American citizens the right to bear arms and protect themselves. However, the amount of deaths from gun violence in the United States is horrifying. Mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School and Virginia Tech should not be allowed to happen in today’s society, and the shooters in these massacres obtain their weapons way too easily.

No matter what side of the gun debate you are on, one thing is clear: the government needs to fix the various loopholes in immigration and gun purchasing. The shooter in the San Bernadino attack, Tashfeen Malik, was allowed a K-1 visa even though her address in Pakistan did not even exist. In addition, the shooters in San Bernadino easily circumvented California’s assault weapon law which bans assault-style, semiautomatic rifles with the capability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine (guns which give people the ability to shoot a large number of rounds and reload quickly).

It is important to note that in California, an ammunition magazine isn’t considered detachable if a tool is required to remove it from the weapon. The San Bernadino shooters exploited this gaping loophole and that is why they were able to carry out their vicious and inhumane act.