"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe." - Luke 11:21. Gun rights is a giant argument in our country right now. In the wake of the Sandy Spring shooting President Obama and the rest of the Democrats have been pushing for gun control. This seems like a mistake because if someone loses their weapon there will be many problems. There are three main reasons why gun control is wrong for our country. The first main reason is that when you take someone's weapon away, they lose their way to defend them-self and then crime will go up because criminals do not have to worry as much about someone being able to defend them-self. Another reason why gun control is not the right choice for our country is that in the constitution all citizens have the right to bear arms. The final main argument against gun control is that we do not need to take away weapons from citizens we just have to do better background checks so we can help stop guns from being bought by someone who should not own a gun. David Keene, the President of the N.R.A. talked on this topic saying, 'Make current background checks work before expanding the system. Keene argued that the present mechanism for vetting gun buyers — the National Instant Criminal Background Check System — is inefficient and lacks comprehensive data on criminal records and mental health."
The first and most prominent reason for people to be able to keep their weapons and stop the government from disarming as many people as they can, is that if people do not have a way to defend themselves criminals will become more aggressive because they know that people will not be able to stop them. Criminals will also not be as affected by the gun control laws, because they can still get a gun on the black market, or just steal it from somewhere else. Mr. Keene mentions this topic by saying, "Current laws would work if they were enforced, Keene said. He said Chicago has a high murder rate involving firearms, and some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, but it ranks 89th among localities in actually prosecuting gun crime." This means that even though Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation it still has one of the highest crime rates in the country, because the criminals still have guns and the everyday citizen does not. Also the city does not enforce their small time gun violations. On the other end of the spectrum in a small dollar store in Indiana a pastor stoped a robbery because he had a gun with him. He told reporters something that happened during the robbery. "He was telling me to get on the ground," Sanders told WFIE. "That's when I pulled my weapon and say, 'No, you get on the ground." So based on these two examples allowing citizens to have weapons can stop potentially dangerous crimes and stop people from getting injured in the prospect.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
The opposite perspective-
The main argument for gun control is that if we take away the guns there will be less gun related violence, and events where someone who is mentally unstable like the Sandy Hook shooting will be less likely to happen. Also if guns are taken away there will be less suicides. now what's stopping someone from say just taking pills or hanging them selves, well a gun is quick if taken away then it could give the person more time to think and change their mind. Another argument is that we do not need assault weapons for sport or hunting all we need are long rifles or shotguns. If assault or easily hidden weapons are banned it will decrease the amounts of deaths in shootings when they happen. these arguments on gun control are just trying to help us make our world better and save more lives. President Obama spoke on this issue in 2008.
"We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. My belief is that we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns." (President Obama, 2008) In Chicago and Baltimore, these cities both have very strict gun control laws, and ironically enough both have some of the highest homicide rates in the country. Now this is just one example of the inefficiency of gun control laws, because when you take away someones means to defend themselves, and you can not stop the other person from getting the same weapon, then how does gun control help? (384 words)
Obama, Barrack H. "Barack Obama on Gun Control." Barack Obama on Gun Control. On the Issues, 2008. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
The main argument for gun control is that if we take away the guns there will be less gun related violence, and events where someone who is mentally unstable like the Sandy Hook shooting will be less likely to happen. Also if guns are taken away there will be less suicides. now what's stopping someone from say just taking pills or hanging them selves, well a gun is quick if taken away then it could give the person more time to think and change their mind. Another argument is that we do not need assault weapons for sport or hunting all we need are long rifles or shotguns. If assault or easily hidden weapons are banned it will decrease the amounts of deaths in shootings when they happen. these arguments on gun control are just trying to help us make our world better and save more lives. President Obama spoke on this issue in 2008.
"We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. My belief is that we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns." (President Obama, 2008) In Chicago and Baltimore, these cities both have very strict gun control laws, and ironically enough both have some of the highest homicide rates in the country. Now this is just one example of the inefficiency of gun control laws, because when you take away someones means to defend themselves, and you can not stop the other person from getting the same weapon, then how does gun control help? (384 words)
Obama, Barrack H. "Barack Obama on Gun Control." Barack Obama on Gun Control. On the Issues, 2008. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Monday, October 21, 2013
An Argument for gun rights-
I want to use an example from Israel or I believe Sweden. Both of these nations have instead of gun control have gun safety that every person learns at some point in their life. In Israel all children go to school and after they graduate high school go into the military for at least two years. This is very good for something like gun control, because it shows everyone how to use, maintain, and store a fire arm. It also weeds out all those who are unfit to have a fire arm, which helps to stop those who are not in the right state of mind to have a weapon. This helps to stop incidents like the Sandy Hook from ever happening.They do have a main diffrence though, they are surrounded by countries that want to destroy them so this is a necessary action. Next Sweden teaches gun safety to all the students while they are in high school. This has the same effect as Israel, but they are not required to join the military, but they do have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. It is like this for one main reason, they have the best deterrent for crime. They all know how to use a gun and most people carry weapons. Just think do you want to mug someone when you know they have a gun? I know I would not. So both of these nations have gun safety laws not gun control laws, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. I think our nation should take a queue from these two and model our gun rights after these nations.
I want to use an example from Israel or I believe Sweden. Both of these nations have instead of gun control have gun safety that every person learns at some point in their life. In Israel all children go to school and after they graduate high school go into the military for at least two years. This is very good for something like gun control, because it shows everyone how to use, maintain, and store a fire arm. It also weeds out all those who are unfit to have a fire arm, which helps to stop those who are not in the right state of mind to have a weapon. This helps to stop incidents like the Sandy Hook from ever happening.They do have a main diffrence though, they are surrounded by countries that want to destroy them so this is a necessary action. Next Sweden teaches gun safety to all the students while they are in high school. This has the same effect as Israel, but they are not required to join the military, but they do have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. It is like this for one main reason, they have the best deterrent for crime. They all know how to use a gun and most people carry weapons. Just think do you want to mug someone when you know they have a gun? I know I would not. So both of these nations have gun safety laws not gun control laws, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. I think our nation should take a queue from these two and model our gun rights after these nations.
some of my sources- these come from the lexus nexus source from the Howard Community College resources. These are some articles I found that are relevant and interesting for my arguments.
The Washington Post September 18, 2013 Wednesday Regional Edition Gun control, RIP
The Washington Post September 18, 2013 Wednesday Regional Edition Gun control, RIP
BYLINE: Dana Milbank: http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.howardcc.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/
The Independent
(London) September 12, 2013 Thursday: First
Edition: Colorado voters eject two lawmakers for backing stricter gun
controls: BYLINE: DAVID USBORNE US Editor: http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.howardcc.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/
The Washington Post: May
8, 2013 Wednesday :Suburban Edition: Report:
Gun violence has fallen greatly since '93: BYLINE: Jerry Markon http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.howardcc.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/
New
Straits Times (Malaysia): July 19,
2013 Friday: Fear leads to gun violence: BYLINE: Shamil
Norshidi: http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.howardcc.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/
R Week (US): April 30, 2007: Gun-control debate has
spotlight - for now: BYLINE: Keith O'Brien
SECTION: NEWS ANALYSIS: http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.howardcc.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/
SECTION: NEWS ANALYSIS: http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.howardcc.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/
Ethics of gun rights-
"In truth, we are called upon to make life-or-death choices more often than we generally realize." The ethics of this issue are so give and take for me it's really hard to really take a side, because no matter which way it goes someone can get harmed in the end. If I was to choose though I would say allow guns, because the odds of someone going crazy and killing someone is less than someone trying to rob or kill or rape someone. If guns can stop these crimes from occurring then I hope that the ends justify the means so to speak.
http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-ethics.html- source for quotes
The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being...(Historian J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.) Is it ethical to allow guns because they cause death in the wrongs hands, but is it also ethical to take away something that could potentially save someone being raped, or someone from being murdered? It is a hard ethical issue for me to argue because for me to side with one side or the other is almost to condone the other side. So lets look at one side first, lets say that we take away the majority of the guns and the gun ban goes through. Now less women have small hand guns with them to protect themselves, and lets be honest with ourselves if a criminal wants to get a gun they can get one. so the only people who are being harmed by gun control are the people who get them through the proper channels. So allowing the gun to stay can be beneficial, but on the other hand what if someone who hunts a lot goes a bit crazy and kills a person. He got his gun legally, and there is really no way he will not be caught, but he still killed a person.
"In truth, we are called upon to make life-or-death choices more often than we generally realize." The ethics of this issue are so give and take for me it's really hard to really take a side, because no matter which way it goes someone can get harmed in the end. If I was to choose though I would say allow guns, because the odds of someone going crazy and killing someone is less than someone trying to rob or kill or rape someone. If guns can stop these crimes from occurring then I hope that the ends justify the means so to speak.
http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-ethics.html- source for quotes
some perspective-
In the past few years democrats have been pushing for gun control because of horrible events like the sandy hook shooting, and the Colorado shooting. They have been saying things like, if there were less guns then there would be less gun related violence, or if its that we allow guns in our society more people will die. Now this is in part true, but its also like blaming a spoon for making people fat, or a car for car related deaths. The problem is not completely the guns fault or really even its fault at all. It is the fault of an irresponsible person making the wrong choice. So if the government wants to ban guns because people are being irresponsible with them, then even if it sounds silly or juvenile then by comparison the government should bad spoons because when someone uses them wrong it will cause them to gain weight and develop heart disease and die. Also the government has been throwing around a term called "to big to fail" well this term goes right along with my previous example. The government considers super businesses like McDonald's to big to fail, but what about gun production companies? The government seems like they do not care about all the jobs that a company like Winchester or Remington produces, and also their products are in demand. There are a few similarities between these two companies. One and the biggest similarities is that technically they both sell items that when used irresponsibly cause harm to people. They both give jobs, and they both help stimulate the economy. The main difference is that the government is actively trying to get rid of guns which in turn is making then in my opinion a hypocrite, by trying to lessen the selling of guns they are going to cause the gun companies to lay off people and less sales tax will come in because of the lessened sales.
In the past few years democrats have been pushing for gun control because of horrible events like the sandy hook shooting, and the Colorado shooting. They have been saying things like, if there were less guns then there would be less gun related violence, or if its that we allow guns in our society more people will die. Now this is in part true, but its also like blaming a spoon for making people fat, or a car for car related deaths. The problem is not completely the guns fault or really even its fault at all. It is the fault of an irresponsible person making the wrong choice. So if the government wants to ban guns because people are being irresponsible with them, then even if it sounds silly or juvenile then by comparison the government should bad spoons because when someone uses them wrong it will cause them to gain weight and develop heart disease and die. Also the government has been throwing around a term called "to big to fail" well this term goes right along with my previous example. The government considers super businesses like McDonald's to big to fail, but what about gun production companies? The government seems like they do not care about all the jobs that a company like Winchester or Remington produces, and also their products are in demand. There are a few similarities between these two companies. One and the biggest similarities is that technically they both sell items that when used irresponsibly cause harm to people. They both give jobs, and they both help stimulate the economy. The main difference is that the government is actively trying to get rid of guns which in turn is making then in my opinion a hypocrite, by trying to lessen the selling of guns they are going to cause the gun companies to lay off people and less sales tax will come in because of the lessened sales.
My Central Argument-
The purpose of this blog is to talk about gun rights. The reason I have chosen this topic is because it is a hot political topic right now. Gun control is just one big bomb just waiting to go off and the detonator is in the hands of the government. What i mean by this is that if the government decides to continue down this path of banning guns they just might have a outright rebellion again.
In this string of posts i will be arguing for the pro gun rights advocates. I am arguing this because I believe that gun rights are under the constitution. All people have the right to own and maintain arms under the constitution, but with the way the government is going now could possibly do the opposite of their intention to make our country safer by taking away and limiting our weapons. I believe that the term gun control is wrong. There should not be "gun control" i think that it should be gun safety and that instead of limiting the guns we should teach everyone how to use and maintain a gun. Imagine if the majority of the adults new how to shoot a gun. would you want to try and break into a house knowing that at least one person in that house knows how to shoot a gun. your not going to want to break into that house. that thought alone will deter so much crime. This is just one of the reasons i believe that gun control is the wrong way to go about the issue of weapons in our country.
The purpose of this blog is to talk about gun rights. The reason I have chosen this topic is because it is a hot political topic right now. Gun control is just one big bomb just waiting to go off and the detonator is in the hands of the government. What i mean by this is that if the government decides to continue down this path of banning guns they just might have a outright rebellion again.
In this string of posts i will be arguing for the pro gun rights advocates. I am arguing this because I believe that gun rights are under the constitution. All people have the right to own and maintain arms under the constitution, but with the way the government is going now could possibly do the opposite of their intention to make our country safer by taking away and limiting our weapons. I believe that the term gun control is wrong. There should not be "gun control" i think that it should be gun safety and that instead of limiting the guns we should teach everyone how to use and maintain a gun. Imagine if the majority of the adults new how to shoot a gun. would you want to try and break into a house knowing that at least one person in that house knows how to shoot a gun. your not going to want to break into that house. that thought alone will deter so much crime. This is just one of the reasons i believe that gun control is the wrong way to go about the issue of weapons in our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)