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 gun. To state the obvious, guns 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

Defending our right to self defense.

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, "Connecticut law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was 20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a minor." So regardless of the laws in place, Lanza was still able to get a hold of these weapons. This proves that even with stricter laws and limited gun sales, there will always be a way for people to get a hold of weapons.  As prominent as gun laws can be there are also illegal ways of attaining guns. That's what makes it this a tough decision. You take away the right to bear arms, then people may not be able to defend themselves as best they could against those that illegally acquire firearms. 

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:

-Ozzy