In my last post, I discussed how other countries have dealt with their treat of gun violence, all with incredibly positive results. Looking at our own country, which has such a horrifying record of fire arm attacks, it can be confusing as to why we wouldn't adopt similar principles. If it worked there, why not here?
Unfortunately, there are a few reasons why other countries stricter gun laws couldn't be paralleled here in the United States. That is not to say that they could never work, but to pass these laws, there would have to be a significant shift in the countries perception of gun violence and personal beliefs.
**Disclaimer before we get into this post: I have my personal opinion on this issue, and while I will not outright state my stance, there is a very real possibility that it may be a bit detectable as to where I stand as this particular post offers more of a place for that. That being said, I do not mean to offend or denounce either side of the issue. I urge everyone to keep an open mind until they've made their own decision.**
So, what are some oppositions to stricter gun control? Well, as I talked about in a previous post where I dissected each side of the issue, there are a few reasons. The main one is the second amendment. This is a pretty common argument, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Which is all well and good, until you read the first half of that statement which says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state [being the reason for the legality of owning guns]". Because of our police force, militias are no longer needed to protect the free state. Now, this only protects peoples rights to own an unnecessary amount of guns. The constitutions should be there to protect us, not used as a reason for those who can hurt us to continue doing so.
Also stated in that same post was how the NRA argued that more guns make the country safer; arguing that in the cause of the Sandy Hook tragedy, had the teachers been armed, it could have been avoided. However, requiring teachers to carry firearms in schools in their classes crosses a line. Educators are not equipped to use said firearm in a hostile situation, nor should they be forced to be. It is not in their job description. Furthermore, the argument that more guns make things safer is a weak one. Research shows that in 2011, there were 14,675 injuries in the US involving accidental discharge, and the that number would only go up in a school setting where kids were around a firearm all day (the number increases if people are poorly trained or inexperienced, as the teachers would most likely be).
An article written by Joan Walsh, The Nation’s National Affairs Correspondent, shined some light onto other possible reasons as to why stricter gun control laws wouldn't work. As we know, a lot of the time the Republican party is on the side of the NRA in that they oppose any kind of gun restriction. That is not saying it is all Republicans, it is mostly the radially far-right's sentiment. Why? Walsh offers a solution; "Our prolonged gun control stalemate reflects the far-right’s deep distrust of democracy... Increasingly this right-wing fringe believes it’s going to need its guns to overthrow an illegitimate government—especially the one run by gun-grabbing Barack Obama." The NRA even issued a 10-point guide stating the ways Obama would strip them from their basic gun rights. However, although these people believe Obama to be "coming for their guns" since before he became president, that is far from the case. In his first year he signed a law overturning a ban on loaded and concealed guns in national parks in 2009. Aside from that, which helps their cause, he has left the issue alone. It is not hard to see why people are reluctant for change; big business spread lies about the issue to keep people from challenging it.
The last issue I will be discussing is people's selfish attitudes toward their personal gun rights. In my post prior to this one, I stated how the epidemic of gun violence is only growing in our country. School shootings hardly even make the front front page anymore, they've become so common. Instead of thinking of our country as a whole, and how to keep the majority safe, people only worry about themselves in this situation.
Smaller countries have an easier job uniting their people under a common goal. In the US, an attack that happens in Connecticut doesn't really directly impact someone all the way in Arizona. On top of that, our country is pretty divided down the middle; the North generally being more for gun control and the South generally opposing it. This makes it hard for everyone to unite for the common goal.
For these reasons, it may seem improbable for a satisfactory end to come of it. However, that doesn't mean people aren't going to try. In my next and final post, I will discuss how the front runners of the presidential election are going about this issue.
Unfortunately, there are a few reasons why other countries stricter gun laws couldn't be paralleled here in the United States. That is not to say that they could never work, but to pass these laws, there would have to be a significant shift in the countries perception of gun violence and personal beliefs.
**Disclaimer before we get into this post: I have my personal opinion on this issue, and while I will not outright state my stance, there is a very real possibility that it may be a bit detectable as to where I stand as this particular post offers more of a place for that. That being said, I do not mean to offend or denounce either side of the issue. I urge everyone to keep an open mind until they've made their own decision.**
So, what are some oppositions to stricter gun control? Well, as I talked about in a previous post where I dissected each side of the issue, there are a few reasons. The main one is the second amendment. This is a pretty common argument, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Which is all well and good, until you read the first half of that statement which says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state [being the reason for the legality of owning guns]". Because of our police force, militias are no longer needed to protect the free state. Now, this only protects peoples rights to own an unnecessary amount of guns. The constitutions should be there to protect us, not used as a reason for those who can hurt us to continue doing so.
 |
| Via partneringwitheagles.wordpress.com |
Also stated in that same post was how the NRA argued that more guns make the country safer; arguing that in the cause of the Sandy Hook tragedy, had the teachers been armed, it could have been avoided. However, requiring teachers to carry firearms in schools in their classes crosses a line. Educators are not equipped to use said firearm in a hostile situation, nor should they be forced to be. It is not in their job description. Furthermore, the argument that more guns make things safer is a weak one. Research shows that in 2011, there were 14,675 injuries in the US involving accidental discharge, and the that number would only go up in a school setting where kids were around a firearm all day (the number increases if people are poorly trained or inexperienced, as the teachers would most likely be).
An article written by Joan Walsh, The Nation’s National Affairs Correspondent, shined some light onto other possible reasons as to why stricter gun control laws wouldn't work. As we know, a lot of the time the Republican party is on the side of the NRA in that they oppose any kind of gun restriction. That is not saying it is all Republicans, it is mostly the radially far-right's sentiment. Why? Walsh offers a solution; "Our prolonged gun control stalemate reflects the far-right’s deep distrust of democracy... Increasingly this right-wing fringe believes it’s going to need its guns to overthrow an illegitimate government—especially the one run by gun-grabbing Barack Obama." The NRA even issued a 10-point guide stating the ways Obama would strip them from their basic gun rights. However, although these people believe Obama to be "coming for their guns" since before he became president, that is far from the case. In his first year he signed a law overturning a ban on loaded and concealed guns in national parks in 2009. Aside from that, which helps their cause, he has left the issue alone. It is not hard to see why people are reluctant for change; big business spread lies about the issue to keep people from challenging it.
The last issue I will be discussing is people's selfish attitudes toward their personal gun rights. In my post prior to this one, I stated how the epidemic of gun violence is only growing in our country. School shootings hardly even make the front front page anymore, they've become so common. Instead of thinking of our country as a whole, and how to keep the majority safe, people only worry about themselves in this situation.
 |
| Via cagel.com |
Smaller countries have an easier job uniting their people under a common goal. In the US, an attack that happens in Connecticut doesn't really directly impact someone all the way in Arizona. On top of that, our country is pretty divided down the middle; the North generally being more for gun control and the South generally opposing it. This makes it hard for everyone to unite for the common goal.
For these reasons, it may seem improbable for a satisfactory end to come of it. However, that doesn't mean people aren't going to try. In my next and final post, I will discuss how the front runners of the presidential election are going about this issue.
I like how your post presented both sides of this issue. I think that the main reason we are having so much trouble solving this problem is that very few people are willing to compromise. The people holding up this process are the people who believe there should be no restrictions, and the people who believe that nobody should be allowed to own guns.
ReplyDeleteAmerica seems to have a history of being divided over issues which makes addressing problems like these extremely difficult. I personally don't have a strong view on gun control, but perhaps a way to ease some of the tension would be to make individual states responsible for gun control. As of now, different states already have different regulations for handling guns. Maybe if a state were to enact a stricter gun control policy and see positive results from it, other states could be persuade to enact similar laws.
ReplyDeleteWhile I still don't necessarily agree with stricter gun laws, I also don't agree with the idea of forcing teachers to carry firearms. To be quite frank, I don't know if I trust certain teachers with a loaded gun, even if they were trained. A better policy would perhaps be to employ more police officers in schools instead. I think it's fine that you let your opinion be known in this post. I know we try to keep our information unbiased, but I notice that I have let my opinion slip in my Civics Issues Blog as well.
ReplyDelete