As cliche as this is, I truly
believe in the following statement, "Guns do not kill people, people kill
people." As I'm typing this, I already feel huge assumptions being made as
a result of my stance on this topic. Something along the lines of labeling me a
red neck or gun fanatic. But I am neither of these. I'm just a typical college
student who happens to actually be Hispanic. I don't have a general interests
in firearms really, but I feel that it is important to have a say in regards to
gun control. So all assumptions about me aside, I hope after reading this you
see a different perspective whether you are for or against this topic.
On April of 2013 the senate
decided to reject the Toomey-Machin gun
control proposal. This proposal stated that background checks would be
mandatory for gun show and internet sales but, would allow transfers between
families and friends to go unaffected. Although this may sound like a good
compromise, we have to look at the bigger picture. According to David T. Hardy, from
reason.com, "The anti-gun crowd doesn't want compromise, they want
confiscation." What Hardy means by this is that the ultimate goal isn't a
compromise between gun owners and gun control advocates but, a total seizure of
firearms. Compromises are only stepping stones that eventually lead to the hidden
agenda of gun control advocates. Hardy further explains this idea by providing
the example of the 1972 Brady Campaign. Pete Shields, a member of this group, laid out a step by step
plan to gain total control over handguns in America. He stated," We're
going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily-
given the political realities- going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd
be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal- total
control of handguns in the United States- is going to take some time. My
estimate is from 7 to 10 years." This did not sound like a
compromise. It sounded more like trying to take away our right to bear arms.
Why take away our right to protect
ourselves?
It is our constitutional right to
bear arms and protect ourselves. This right has been challenged over and over
again in many court cases. And it was not until the case of District of Columbia vs.
Heller, that this right was fully protected from state law. In the District
of Columbia, handguns can not be registered and it is a crime to carry an
unregistered firearm. Also any legally owned fire arms must be disassembled and
must be put under trigger lock. At the time Dick Heller filed an application to
register a handgun he wanted to keep at home. His application was rejected so
he went on to file a law suit. In his law suit Heller "sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on
handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a
firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar
as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home." It
is surprising that of all people, his application would be rejected. He is a
trained police officer that has experience in handling weapons. If his
application was rejected what hope was there for non-police officers. However,
Heller did go on to win the case as it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that Heller was entitled to have an operating handgun
under the second amendment. This was very important because it marked the first
time that the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protects an
individuals rights to bear arms for self-defense.
The following is a portion of the official ruling made by the Supreme Court, according to Wikipedia:
- "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home... Pp. 2–53."
- "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose... Pp. 54–56."
- "(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense... Pp. 56–64."
Our right "shall not be infringed".
Many events in U.S. history have
fueled the argument towards gun control. The Sandy Hook Elementary School
shooting has been the most influential this past year. It was a terrible tragedy
where over 20 children and 7 adults (one adult being the shooters own mother)
were shot dead. This ignited a media bomb that targeted current gun laws, with
hopes to make improve them or set new ones that further regulated the purchase
and ownership of guns. There was no doubt that emotions were running high
during this period. However if we look at this through an objective
perspective, can we really say that faulty gun laws were to blame? Dana Scherne from policymic.com brings up some interesting points on this. According
to Dana it was already illegal for Adam to own any type of firearm. She writes, "
As I stated in the beginning ,"Gun's do not kill people, people kill people." A gun is an instrument of death not death itself. It's actions are determined by those that pull the trigger. Without a person in the equation a gun is harmless. We change the purpose an item has in this world. We can changed a knife, a rock, or baseball bat into a deadly weapon. So maybe it's not guns we should look out for, but people we should pay closer attention to.
The following video adds some interesting points and includes 5 main arguments against gun control:
Hey Ozzy,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is true objects are just instruments and that they, themselves, cause no harm unless there is an actor to perform the action. In this case, someone would have to pull the trigger in order for the gun to fire. I also agree with you that even with strict laws on gun control, people will find ways to get their hands on guns, causing the weapons to be sold on black markets and illegal sales, and THAT could lead to a whole bunch of other problems.
When you say maybe we should pay closer attention to people instead of guns, what do you suggest we do? Educate the public about gun safety? Forbid people from obtaining guns if they have children in the house? Or maybe have the government issue locks and safes to store the guns in?
-Kelly
I think he is suggesting that we pay closer attention to the psychological condition of the people around us.
DeleteWhile your suggestions might help, they are not the base of his argument. If it is the person who actually commits the act, instead of the gun, then it is the mentality of that person that is in question.
I would argue that a more strict background checking system should be adopted, perhaps with a psychological evaluation incorporated. That seems to be the crux of the issue. Anyone can pull a trigger, but with what intent? If one could point a gun at an innocent person or child and pull the trigger, there is definitely a missing connection that ought to be present. That is what we should be looking for, rather than forbidding people with children to own guns, etc.
You made some really excellent points in this post and the final video provided even more insight to this topic. I really liked how you focused on people being the problem behind gun control and not the guns. However, this makes it really difficult to deal with since it is extremely difficult to tell the true nature of people. Even friends can not tell what one another is truly thinking. It was interesting to see that the anti-gun control law activists want to remove guns completely even though it is our amendment right to have them. Although guns can be used to protect yourself they can also hurt the people you care about if you do not properly know how to use them. It is very common that under-aged people obtain firearms through their parents since they are aware of where their parents keep it on them. In the end it is important to consider the people in all of these matters since they are the ones who are responsible for these acts of
ReplyDeleteviolence.
-Alex
You make it clear that guns are the tools and humans are the users. I think what the arguments from both side comes down to is self-defense versus combating gun violence. You made an excellent point about how age restrictions and gun laws do not stop people from getting a hold of gun. An out right ban would displease self-defense advocates, while doing nothing to curb gun violence would displease anti-gun advocates. This is one of those times where I feel that both sides are arguing different points involving guns, but cannot come to consensus to a solution to two problems. You say that we should look closer at the people with the firearms. So is our educational system or health care system at fault? And are there solutions that satisfy both sides?
ReplyDelete-Patrick Yu
Hey Ozzy,
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from but I believe that the risks are too high to justify allowing easy access to guns. If you take a look at everything that's happened just within the past year, there were too many casualties and too much damage that the public has left themselves no choice but to regulate gun control. We were granted a right to bear arms but we chose to take advantage of that right and now we have to pay for it, even if it is a few violators of this right. We are one as a society and if it requires some of us to not attain that right for the safety of others, then it is something we should consider. Instead of asking how we can better vet the people we give guns to, I encourage you to ask how we can live in a society where guns are not necessary. If there are no guns available, then there is no need for us to defend ourselves with guns.
-Dan
Ozzy,
ReplyDeleteWhile I do understand your point of view, I cannot grasp the idea of allowing something like a gun into the hands of our society. You compared guns to knives and bats, but unlike those items, guns have range that varies on the gun type. A gun requires less exertion of the body. Through just a quick trigger pull, one can release the captivated bullet at instantaneous speed. If an individual had a gun and a knife running on the loose, which would be easier to stop? Authorities have to combat guns WITH guns and often times these exchanges last hours. Removing the problem from society will almost never let it be a problem. While a gun may protect a family of five who can afford the weapon, that same weapon can be used by a member of the family who wishes to take revenge on society. The problem lies within our own policies, we must take action now!
-Omar
Hi Ozzy!
ReplyDeleteI would consider myself typically for gun control legislation, but some of the things that I have read in this blog have caused me to question my stance. I agree that when I do read opinions on this subject I often make assumptions about the writer and will occasionally stop reading if I do not agree with the first couple of sentences. I think you made a very good decision in opening your blog in this way; it kept me reading. I typically have issues with the saying that you use in your argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but some of the things that you wrote in here got me to think about it a little differently. I agree that maybe we should maybe spend a little less money on gun control laws that seem to be ineffective and spend a little more on solving some of the societal issues that could be to blame.
I had a little difficulty with one source that you used, which states that the anti-gun crowd doesn't seek control but confiscation. I felt that this was kind of a harsh generalization. I typically consider myself part of the anti-gun crowd, but I could imagine many scenarios where a gun would be useful to have. I would not want to take them away from American citizens entirely, but I do feel that some restrictions and regulations could be a way to prevent unnecessary balance. Thank you for allowing me to understand both positions on this issue a little clearer!
Katherine Davila