Pages

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Guns, They're Everywhere

Under the 1968 Gun Control Act, unless a person is convicted of a felony, awaiting trial for a crime, charged for domestic violence, deemed mentally incompetent by a professional, a drug addict, or an illegal alien, buying a firearm isn't much of a problem. An 18 year old person can legally purchase a rifle or shotgun, and a 21 year old can purchase a handgun. Personally I couldn't wait to turn 18 years old. At 18, I quickly got my driver’s license and traveled anywhere I wanted. At 21, I was finally old enough to drink and from what I can recall, had the most amazing birthday. It is troubling to think, however, that as a 21-year-old, I can also skip to the nearest store and buy a gunTo state the obviousguns are dangerous, kill people, and destroy lives. 

Guns are dangerous weapons to handle, however many people wish to own firearms in order to protect themselves from their government. They feel that having their weapons taken away is equivalent to having their constitutional rights revoked. People argue that without guns, the government has too much power in their hands and can thus freely break into personal homes, destroy individual property, and in some cases, injure or kill innocent people. It is these individuals who believe that guns offer better protection that are turning to an ineffective solution. The role of our government is to maintain order within our society and protect us from harm. If we don’t trust our own government and live in fear that it could totally screw us over, then there are larger issues at hand. We live in a democratic society where it’s our constitutional right to overthrow a corrupt government. A gun does not protect our constitutional rights, nor does it guarantee our safety. Furthermore, the individual possession of firearms cannot compare to the immense firepower and strong army force behind the United States government. If a person wanted to defend themselves from the government, using a handgun might not always give them protection, but it does give them a false sense of security. Personally, that particular fact doesn't make me feel any more secure or motivated to go and buy myself a handgun. Guns are violent, and violence only leads to more violence. Therefore, tackling any corruption within our government would be best if addressed in a manner that doesn't involve explosive firearms. 

Another reason why many people buy guns in general is because they believe that guns offer them protection from crime. The United States consists of the most heavily armed citizens when compared to other places around the world. According Mark Follman to national surveys and manufacturing sales data, it has been reported that the increase in firearms has surpassed the rate of population growth.  Follman says, “In the past four years, across 37 states, the NRA and its political allies have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, carry, and conceal from the government. “ Eighty percent of the people who were involved in armed robberies and gang related violence obtained their guns legally in the United States. This just shows how simple it is for people to buy an instrument that causes the ultimate damage to another’s life. Also, Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College at Wisconsin, says that there appears to be a relationship between the increased availability in firearms and mass shootings.  There have been two mass shootings per year on average since 1982, and a total of seven in 2012. Armed civilians that attempted to stop the crime from happening usually end up getting shot themselves or cause some sort of bloodshed. Mainly, these civilians due to their inexperience are less likely to hit their targets when compared to trained policemen—who also at times miss shooting their targets. This simple access to guns makes it easier for people to commit a crime rather than prevent it.

It is a scary world out there, and I fully agree that people need to be prepared to protect themselves in a potentially dangerous situation. When a person finds themselves in a hostile environment, there are many non-lethal self-defense weapons they can use to ward off an intruder. These weapons are powerful enough to temporarily harm but not kill an attacker.

Below is a list of self-defensive tools one can buy on eBay as recommended by Joe, a Police Defense Tactics Instructor and Rape Risk Reduction Trainer:
·        
      TASERs are the best option to control another person. They use a safe amount of electricity in the safe shape that acts as a nerve impulse to effect sensory and motor control nerves.They essentially cause the body to "lock up." The TASER C2 is designed to be used on an attacker to leave behind. The "ride" is 30 seconds - giving you plenty of time to escape.

·         Pepper Spray is the best option for overall control from a distance. Most of the Sprays I carry have a range of between 8-15 feet. Don't listen to the hype about buying nothing less than 10%. That’s a marketing gimmick. As a cop and instructor I am here to tell you that the 2% stuff Fox Labs (Google search them) makes is the best stuff on the market. It dropped me like bag of rocks! 

·         Stun Guns--They look and sound great. I would suggest getting one of these for the house. The only problem with them is you have to touch the person. If you are going to get one I don't suggest anything under 300,000 volts. In fact 600,000 is what I would get. 

·         Batons
 
·         Knives and Wild Kat Key Chains--Obviously if you are defending yourself with a knife or other sharp object deadly force is authorized. 

Chris Rock also offers some alternative solutions on how to decrease gun violence:

Actually, I think he’s onto something!
In all seriousness, we have to face the reality of our government being so lenient with civilians owning firearms. There are too many innocent people that are killed every day due to gun related crimes. When it comes down to it I feel that people want to buy a gun to protect themselves from a gun. If the United States government can either reduce the circulation of guns, or ban guns to civilians in general, then maybe a lot of lives can be saved. No one person has the right to take away or kill another human being, and a gun makes it too easy to do just that.



Sources: 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_anyone_buy_a_gun
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-14/opinions/36343989_1_gun-control-debate-gun-control-wayne-lapierre
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation


-Manasa





8 comments:

  1. You made some excellent points on the dangers of carrying a firearm and how it usually tends to lead to more damage rather than less. It is devastating to see how guns can be easily obtained when you are of age. It is also difficult for the government to maintain the safety of all civilians and they usually taken longer than expected to arrive. This leaves the civilians in danger with no options, but to be attacked. I was thinking that maybe there could be some compromise that makes it a little more difficult to obtain guns, but still allow their presence for self-defense? Also those who have and will use guns in self-defense should avoid using them in crowded areas as to avoid accident injury. I really like your point about easily obtainable alternatives to guns that are non-lethal. However if we remove guns and utilize alternatives such as tasters and pepper sprays, will they have the same defensive ability as a firearm? Guns themselves prove to be a menacing weapon, so maybe the presence of a gun against an attacker may scare them more than a Taser. Guns are dangerous weapons which should be controlled better, but they do play a role for the safety of our citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  2. After reading this, I have several questions about banning guns all together. Wouldn't that give criminals and people who obtain guns illegally have the upper hand? A ban does not rid the country of it guns or stop smuggling. I agree with you that we do need some sort of gun control to combat gun violence. However, we should ban military type, semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. We do not need such powerful weapons to protect ourselves and handguns are sufficient.

    I also like the Chris Rock video. It gave me an idea on a possible solution. What if there were sizable taxes on guns and bullets? Taxes could be used to increase enforcement or protection of the civilians by law enforcement officers. That way it would curb the crimes and violence, while people would still get protection.

    -Patrick Yu

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Manasa,

    I agree with you that guns are dangerous, kill people, and do destroy lives resulting in the public to want to defend themselves from those who have guns and can potentially cause harm. However, you say that people want firearms in order to protect themselves from the government. What do you mean from the government? Is the government using guns directly to hurt citizens? Or are you saying that the armed forces working for the government has too much power in gun usage that cause more harm than safety?

    On your second point, I also agree that people own guns to protect themselves from criminals. I found it very shocking that 80% of people in armed robberies and gang related violence owns a gun legally. That just proves that some form of better gun control needs to be implemented to lower the sales of firearms to dangerous people.

    I appreciate that you provide some examples of other ways in protecting yourself through the use of tasers, pepper spray, stun guns, batons, or knives. With all this debate about banning guns or keeping guns, I think people forget that there are other ways of protection out there that are not lethal (if used correctly).

    -Kelly

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really like how you offer alternatives to using guns for protection. And the Chris Rock clip is pure gold!

    I think if more people would be willing to research other means of protection we would be in a safer place.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting argument.
    I question the practicality of banning gun ownership for civilians but anything is possible. Great post though, your use of Chris Rock's standup was entertaining and engaging giving life to what I consider an otherwise stale topic!
    -Kevin

    ReplyDelete
  6. the only controversy i can see with strengthening gun laws is that we will reduce the amount of people that have good intentions with firearms versus those that have bad intentions. We all know stricter gun laws wont prevent criminals from attaining guns. the punishment would just be greater. Regardless of this i would still like to see a reduction of fire arms in the open streets. It's far to great of a loss when stray bullets hit innocent citizens. Somehow there needs to be a better regulation for guns and how to prevent those that are undeserving to attain them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really like your alternatives to guns. When you're being attacked, all people look for is a way to divert the attacker's attention. That can potentially give you the window of opportunity to make an escape or seek help. When you're safe, you can go to the authorities and take necessary actions. So, I'm thinking that the alternatives of guns can be as effective in most scenarios. One can argue that bullets travel faster than taser, pepper sprays, stun guns, etc., and they'd be right. But if someone is looking to just divert her/his attacker's attention, I think that your alternatives can do the job!

    -Kaubin

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your statement that people like having guns in order to protect themselves from their government is interesting, although I'm not sure I agree. I wouldn't say that i always trust the government- I recognize that it is a flawed institution- but that wouldn't motivate me to purchase a gun. While I don't know why any given person purchases a gun, it seems that recreation and immediate personal safety top the list of those that I know about. The looming autocratic crack down seems like little more than paranoia. (May I suggest getting those individuals a psych evaluation stat! Preferably before they arm themselves.)
    Your following paragraph seems attack the core of the issue. Vigilantism doesn't seem to work exceptionally well and leads to MANY problems (The Zimmerman/Martin case for example). Arming the public isn't the answer. Rather than making guns more available and criminalising the poor and disenfranchised by ensnaring them in the nightmare that is the criminal justice system, we should seek to provide opportunities outside of gang or violent culture. I don't think people intrinsically want to carry guns or enact violence. Provide them with other viable options, and I think gun violence and ownership will decrease.
    *love the Chris Rock clip*

    ReplyDelete