Last week, we analyzed the basis of the gun debate. This week, we will look at a few sides of the argument in the hopes of us ourselves being able to make an informed decision about this issue. I urge you to read each side of the debate and keep an open mind, as you may learn something that could effect your current stance.
When we think about the gun control debate, I think most people think of two distinct stances: more gun control and less gun control. While those are good jumping off points, they are only the tip of the iceberg in their own respects. Each large side has a multitude of subsets which must be noted in order to completely understand the issue.
The largest players are the NRA (National Rifle Association) who are against more gun control, and Pro Gun Control, who are, as the name states, behind more gun control. The NRA's core purpose is to protect the rights of gun owners, although that is not the only think they do.
Established in 1871, the NRA was founded to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis". In 1934, they began to inform their members about any firearm-related bills that passed through the government, and since 1975, they have directly lobbied for and against gun legislation. in 1960, the NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with their new NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program. There are more than 13,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors today. Their influence, although believed to be too strong by some (77% of liberal Democrats believe they have too much power), is definitely a plus for those who would like to keep their guns in peace. They stand behind the Second Amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Some huge aspects of pro gun control supporters are better background checks and tighter regulation of gun sales. Their argument is that anyone can gets their hands on a gun (you can buy one at Walmart), and thus the possibility of it falling into the hands of someone who wants to do harm with it is significantly greater. Unfortunately, we have seen such destruction happen, which I will discuss in a later post. The NRP counters that with this statement made by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice-president, "We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed", which is why they believe the shooting epidemic is as high as it is. It is a common misconception that the NRP is completely against background checks, but that is not the case. The NRA backs the FBI-run instant background checks system used by gun dealers when selling firearms. It supports putting all mentally ill people into the system, so that they cannot be sold the gun. It is up to the states to do this, and many are lax in that aspect, putting only a small number of records into the system.
In addition to this, the NRA also believes that more guns make the country safer. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, Mr. LaPierre argued that the lack of an armed guard at the school was to blame for the tragedy. The NRA has also lobbied for confiscated guns should be resold, saying that destroying the weapons is a waste of perfectly good guns. Lastly, they are very behind "open-carry" laws, which allow gun owners to carry their weapons, unconcealed, in most public places.
If these sound like values that you believe in as well, then the NRA's website can keep you up to date with all things firearms, especially with the election looming nearer.
However, if you are into a more restricted approach to gun control, then Pro Gun Control is the place to look. Those who are pro gun control do not agree with how the second amendment is utilized, as the first part, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", is often left out. Before a centralized government and military system came into play, it made sense that people needed guns. How, however, there should be no need for them. Pro gun control supporters argue that more guns equal more shootings, as most shootings are done with a legal weapon. They believe that the assault weapons that can do the most damage should be the most strictly regulated.
Seeing how other countries have banned guns has also been a driving point in supporters of gun control. I will go into this more in a different post, but after a massacre in Australia in 1996, the Prime Minister of the time clamped down on gun control-hard. The following decade, there was a 95% drop in gun homicides. If it worked there, why can't it work here?
These views are polar opposites, and which side you chose is up to you alone. In the next few posts, I will delve deeper into how this issue effects the United States, how other countries have handled it, and where each candidate stands on this issue.
When we think about the gun control debate, I think most people think of two distinct stances: more gun control and less gun control. While those are good jumping off points, they are only the tip of the iceberg in their own respects. Each large side has a multitude of subsets which must be noted in order to completely understand the issue.
The largest players are the NRA (National Rifle Association) who are against more gun control, and Pro Gun Control, who are, as the name states, behind more gun control. The NRA's core purpose is to protect the rights of gun owners, although that is not the only think they do.
 |
| Via Wikipedia |
Some huge aspects of pro gun control supporters are better background checks and tighter regulation of gun sales. Their argument is that anyone can gets their hands on a gun (you can buy one at Walmart), and thus the possibility of it falling into the hands of someone who wants to do harm with it is significantly greater. Unfortunately, we have seen such destruction happen, which I will discuss in a later post. The NRP counters that with this statement made by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice-president, "We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed", which is why they believe the shooting epidemic is as high as it is. It is a common misconception that the NRP is completely against background checks, but that is not the case. The NRA backs the FBI-run instant background checks system used by gun dealers when selling firearms. It supports putting all mentally ill people into the system, so that they cannot be sold the gun. It is up to the states to do this, and many are lax in that aspect, putting only a small number of records into the system.
 |
| Via Alex Fulford |
In addition to this, the NRA also believes that more guns make the country safer. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, Mr. LaPierre argued that the lack of an armed guard at the school was to blame for the tragedy. The NRA has also lobbied for confiscated guns should be resold, saying that destroying the weapons is a waste of perfectly good guns. Lastly, they are very behind "open-carry" laws, which allow gun owners to carry their weapons, unconcealed, in most public places.
If these sound like values that you believe in as well, then the NRA's website can keep you up to date with all things firearms, especially with the election looming nearer.
However, if you are into a more restricted approach to gun control, then Pro Gun Control is the place to look. Those who are pro gun control do not agree with how the second amendment is utilized, as the first part, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", is often left out. Before a centralized government and military system came into play, it made sense that people needed guns. How, however, there should be no need for them. Pro gun control supporters argue that more guns equal more shootings, as most shootings are done with a legal weapon. They believe that the assault weapons that can do the most damage should be the most strictly regulated.
 |
| Via theodysseyonline.com |
Seeing how other countries have banned guns has also been a driving point in supporters of gun control. I will go into this more in a different post, but after a massacre in Australia in 1996, the Prime Minister of the time clamped down on gun control-hard. The following decade, there was a 95% drop in gun homicides. If it worked there, why can't it work here?
These views are polar opposites, and which side you chose is up to you alone. In the next few posts, I will delve deeper into how this issue effects the United States, how other countries have handled it, and where each candidate stands on this issue.
I'm not sure if you read my second passion blog post, but I focused heavily on the oft forgotten first clause of the Second Amendment. It amazes me how organizations like the NRA are able to rally people behind the right to bear arms when it is something that might not even be a right other than for militia. You did well in an effort to stay nonpartisan to this issue, but I was able to detect some disdain for the NRA and support for stricter regulation. Unless you're goal is to be 100% unbiased, I think that's perfectly okay.
ReplyDeleteI love the little cartoon you inserted in there, because that was always my dad's stance on gun control. He always said the bad guys were going to get the guns anyway, and stricter gun control made the good guys defenseless. I also like the information you supplied about the NRA and how they too believe people with mental illness should not be allowed access to guns.
ReplyDeleteI strongly DISS-agree
ReplyDeletewithe wertarded liberals
who think we should all
live in Utopia...
THAT IS RETARDIDDD!!!!!
Who the #@!!s gonna protect you
when thugs break into a slum
AND they have guns?????
I think Chuck Shoe is on the WONG foot.