First of all, it's the 2nd amendment that says that we have the right to own a gun. Because of this being a major part of our nation's constitution, I think it would be pretty hard to change. Plus, with all the red tape and political tension surrounding the issue, I am not sure anything will be done anytime soon.
I am all for having stricter laws for buying a gun, especially for mentally ill, or criminals. I am also for having stricter laws on owning combat-type weapons, although I still feel that laws like this may be an infringement on the right to bear arms. I just don't know how it would be practical.
When it boils down to it, if a bad guy wants to get a gun, they are going to find it somehow. Speaking currently, the guy (I don't want to use his name because I don't think he deserves it) who murdered the children and teachers last Friday was turned down to buy a gun a few days before, according to the news, and he got his hands on weapons anyway.
Even if we had a weapon buy-back program, and stopped selling them to the public, I just don't think that we could get them all off the streets.
Heroin, cocaine, meth - all of these and many other illegal drugs are not legal to sell, but that hasn't hurt the drug trade coming into this country. It hasn't stopped thousands from finding, using, and in many cases, ultimately overdosing on illegal drugs.
Ultimately, the problem is not the gun. The problem is the "crazy" person (I use that term colloquially, of course) with the gun. Yes, let's make it harder to obtain a gun. I wouldn't mind waiting to buy a gun while my background got checked, but during the time that that background check was happening, some sociopath just stole, borrowed, or otherwise obtained a gun and shot 20 innocent kids and 6 adults. So, how do you prevent that from happening with stricter gun laws?
My choice in this matter is to carry a concealed weapon myself. If, heaven forbid, I were to ever find myself in the position of that principal, or teacher, or movie-goer, I want to have the ability to protect myself and my family, as well as those around me. If more of us, and I mean responsible, mentally capable, healthy, temperate individuals, were to exercise our right to bear arms, perhaps this would not only stop these killers when they are on a rampage, but deter them from even beginning one. Let's not be those who fear, but those who are feared. Maybe it's because I am mentally healthy, but I would think twice about going on a shooting spree if I knew that it was a common thing for people to carry a concealed weapon.
Finally, we don't give a second thought today (maybe we do during an election year:)) to our government becoming a dictatorship, or to the idea that our government might exercise power over us through the use of force - but what if the military and government officials were the only people who had weapons? And then, what if our government became corrupt and exercised power over us in a way that violated our rights, or even our lives? What if the government used intimidation tactics to influence us because it was able to do so because we had no means of realistically defending ourselves? I think this is why we have the 2nd Amendment. While is seems unlikely that our nation would ever move to this level of power and control, it is the reason we have this Amendment.
At this point I will end my debate on gun control. It could easily turn into a debate on much more than that, including the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the history behind it, even debating entire government systems and beliefs.
In the end, my stance is that we have the right to bear arms. There should be strict laws for obtaining firearms, especially for criminals and mentally ill, as well as semi-automatic and combat-type weapons. I don't see these regulations keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys. In the meantime, I will use my right of the 2nd Amendment by obtaining a concealed weapon license and pray that I will never have to use it, and I believe that many more of us should exercise that right.
6 comments:
Thank you for this post, and for this forum, Tricia. Having a dialogue at this critical time in history is very important, and I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspectives, although I understand that there will be others!
As I understand it, the original and primary impetus for the 2nd Amendment was to counterbalance against the potential tyranny of government. But just as physical gold is no longer the basis of the value of our US currency, physical arms are no longer the basis of our counter-political power against any potential tyrannies of government. Both exist in the social realm (the GDP for the dollar; the political process for countering potential government over-reaching).
But here, let's not go so far as to argue for a total, total ban on all firearms--but rather for greater regulation and limitation. One argument against gun laws is that "only the law abiding obey laws." But it is not clear how this differs from any other law, specifically in the case of guns. People who don't care about stopping at red lights will run them. Does that mean we don't pass traffic laws at all?
That brings us to enforceability. Some argue that, even if we pass gun laws, we can't enforce them anyway--criminals will get them if they wan them, much in the same way that the war on drugs doesn't work because people manufacture drugs illegally.
However, there is no evidence to support a prediction that the outcomes of firearm regulation will result in one equivalent to that of the so-called "war on drugs." These involve different contexts. The impact of regulations upon firearms manufacturing, importing, and trafficking are not automatically the same as the impact upon those of drugs. For example, firearms cannot be manufactured in illegal "gun labs" in the same manner and with the same efficiency as drugs--guns utilized illegally are usually manufactured under legal circumstances and then trafficked/imported illegally…stricter regulations on the production of firearms in the first place limits the trafficking and imports, while a stricter checks on trafficking and imports by empowering government bureaus such as ATF, sanctioned by public regulatory policy, further limits cases of illegal possession and use.
More importantly, any speculation about possible future outcomes need to be based upon actual evidence. For example:
“The US has more guns in civilian hands than any other developed country and more firearm related death as a result: more frequent massacres like the horrific shooting in Colorado, and day after day, more accidental firearm deaths, more domestic homicides, more homicides in the streets, and more firearm suicides. Other countries have much more sensible gun control policies than does the US and, ironically, more people in the US favor sensible firearm control legislation than has been enacted. The toll of firearm death is not, however, inevitable. Indeed, we know that rates of suicide and homicide are lower, all else equal, in areas of the US where there are fewer privately owned guns and where more sensible gun control is the norm. Violence is a public health problem, and firearm violence is recognized as a uniquely American public health problem (at least in comparison to other high income countries). Most scientific studies on firearms now come from the public health community.”
--Report by Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD and David Hemenway, PhD., Harvard Injury Control Research Center and members of American Public Health Association's Injury Control and Emergency Health Services Section, in the wake of the recent Aurora, CO shootings.
Thank you,
Brian
Brian, did you know that Switzerland govt. mandates that a gun be issued to each household in the country, and that that country has the lowest gun related crime rate of all industrialized countries?
Actually, not household, per se. It has to do with mandatory military service in that country. It is similar in Israel. Moreover, the gun and ammunition laws are quite strict (i.e., highly regulated). Please refer to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/
Yes, I've read that one too. If you are interested, check out Dr Sowell on the subject of gun control.
Will do, Carle. Thanks for this discussion and for the information.
The Founders did in fact put the 2nd Amendment in The Constitution so that citizens could protect themselves against a tyrannical govt....if it ever came to that. Alexander Hamilton said, "....but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."
Gun control has had the opposite effect of what it purports to do. Just look at Chicago and DC--cities with the strictest of gun laws. They have the worst crime rates. Great Britain, who banned guns years ago, has experienced a substantial increase in gun violence....up to 89% increase! Take guns away from the law abiders and the criminals will still have them.
I got my concealed several years ago. I don't want to be a sitting duck in "gun-free" zones.
Post a Comment