Every year, about 30,000 people die in the US due to gun related deaths. Most people would say that that doesn't surprise them. That would be their reason for controlling guns, to prevent gun deaths. Then maybe you should think about controlling cars, or controlling tobacco. Annually, about 42,000 people die due to car accidents, and about 440,000 die from tobacco related illnesses. Why aren't Obama and McCain discussing their "tobacco control" policies? Then one could say "Yeah, but all those deaths could have been prevented." Yeah, as could the tobacco related deaths.
What I'm driving at here is most of the people who promote gun control are just misinformed about guns. All they hear are the insane people that go around shooting up malls and killing people with handguns. They don't hear the hunters that use the guns for recreational purposes. By getting rid of guns altogether, you are taking away a constitutional right for those that use them responsibly, and I'm going to assume you all are informed about the second amendment.
Next, one could argue that getting rid of guns would make criminals have less guns, therefore promoting a better environment for everyone. Wrong. Imagine, you're a convicted felon on the run. Are you going to care if you buy a gun off of the black market or from the underground? No. The criminals will find a way to get the guns. The only thing this would do is allow the people that would use the gun for righteousness to be defenseless when encountered.
I'm not bashing all types of gun control. Assault rifles, or fully automatic weapons should be banned. There is no reason to have an AK-47 or anything like that for general home defense. All I'm asking is that you stop following the people that are for gun control and think of who your actions are hurting. Think of the people that can't have fun because they used to hunt. Think of the people that use guns for self defense in a dangerous part of town. You've taken away their security. There is no reason for gun control in America.
~Lance51
11 comments:
Unfortunately there is little in this post that convinces me that gun control is wrong. There are some key issues to discuss here. First, most of those tobacco related deaths are people who have chose for themselves to take the risks and for the most part only the person who made the choice is the one who suffered the consequences ie:death. Perhaps we should look in to how many of those gun deaths were inflicted on the person who made the decision to buy the gun and how many people died because of SOMEONE ELSE'S poor decisions. Next, guns are becoming increasingly more deadly and efficient methods of extermination. Where do we draw the line. Little could be done by a single man with a musket when the constitution was written. Now what can a single person do today with a fully automatic clip fed rifle accurate to 500m+. Changes in technology always require changes in laws. Lastly, why would it be unconstitutional to prevent us the right to own a gun. It's obviously within legal boundaries to restrict bomb production or chemical warfare components. Why? because they have very few uses outside of mass destruction of life. I can make the same assumption for the Americans who find it within legal rights to own a machine gun. Gun control does not necessarily mean the complete removal of firearms and weapons from the public, but nearly the control of them.
We shouldn't ban guns all together.
But the government really needs to step it up, and make sure only the right people have them.
Guns are only used to kill things and people. The can't get into the wrong hands.
Controlling cars is by far a very different issue. The main purpose of cars is transportation. It is not to kill people. However, what is one of the main reasons people use guns? TO KILL PEOPLE. There should be tight gun control laws. I'm not saying the government should ban guns all together, I'm just saying they should strictly enforce who can own or sell guns.
It has always seemed to me, if your carring around a concealed weapon, your just looking to shoot someone. Hunting guns and House protection guns are the only sensible way to handle this problem.
To ea: The constitution doesn't guarantee the people the right to make bombs and chemical weapons. It does, however, guarantee the people the right to keep and bear arms.
To cows: That is really the task at hand. The government has installed very good safeguards to assure that no one buys a gun legally that shouldn't have one. However, that still leaves the black market. The problem with guns in this country lies in the black market, not with the legal gun shops.
The second amendment was written because at the time we needed a militia. We no longer need our citizens to be prepared for battle, so what is the point in allowing them to own weapons. Really, in Papillion, Nebraska, what in the world do you need a gun for?
Unfortunately for your argument, Mary Poppins, this is a federal law that does not pertain only to Papillion.
If you really want an answer as to why, however, we need only to refer to previous arguments.
This is Nebraska; there are lots of people who hunt. The most common method of doing this is with a gun.
Though Papillion is a pretty safe place to live, nowhere is perfect. It is perfectly understandable for someone to want to be able to protect their family in a time of danger perceived to be life-threatening.
Again--this is a law that applies to the entire nation. There are places in the rest of the nation where it is much more necessary to have a home gun for protection--and probably places where hunting is more common.
Poppins, you actually have a good point. Do we really need guns? Maybe not. But, the way around that is to ammend (repeal) the 2nd ammendment rather than ignore it. As long as the 2nd ammendment is on the books, it is the law of the land no matter how unnecessary it may be.
The only real result of gun control is one more restriction added to everyday life. Many people purchase weapons for recreational purposes or just because they are cool to have. The argument that the constitution is outdated and the second amendment needs to be revised has a critical flaw in its logic. The primary reason that the second amendment was so important is that it was a safeguard against an illegitimate government. Our government is only legitimate because the people allow it to be. That is why our constitution is such an intricate document full of checks and balances so that the overall power is in the people. The moment we sacrifice the second amendment because it isn't safe is the moment we lose our safety. Weapons are a necessity in overthrowing a corrupt government. Even the restriction of automatic weapons is a violation of our rights. Try to overthrow a corrupt government with a pistol and see how well that goes. In history gun control has been a fundamental policy for totalitarian regimes. It was one of the first changes Adolf Hitler made when he came to power. Totalitarian governments do not want any power in the people, which is why they didn't want them to have weapons that could fight them. Conversely, one of the fundamental requirements of freedom is that the people have power and that includes the ownership of guns. That is the legitimacy of maintaining the second amendment. I don't think that it was a coincidence that our constitution is still, in all practicality, identical to the one we started with. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. The more power we give government, the harder it will be to take it back. Yes, we even need guns in Papillion, Nebraska. At Westroads mall our ban on automatic weapons didn't help much and it could have been an entirely different situation if a shopper had a weapon to combat the shooter with. Of course accidents will happen, but we cant give up our power to own weapons (yes, Even automatic ones) when others can get them illegally anyway. When you dissect the issue to the bone, you find that gun control is nothing but a forfeit of power, to criminals and corruption. Living in fear of death isn't living at all. If you believe that safety restrictions will make you safe then you aren't safe politically, economically or ideologically.
i can understand why some people would want gun control in order to keep people safe,but this person has a point all of the hunters who get some of their food. also recently the summer olympics just happend and the United states took gold in trapshooting. now if we would have had gun control how would he have practiced on his own time to be able to win that gold medal.
While this post makes a valid point, there should be a limit to the control government can have over guns, gun control is not a bad thing. Granted guns should not be banned altogether. Many people who buy a gun legally are doing so with the purpose of recreation and are not harming themselves or others. People buying guns illegally is a problem that is not going to be solved by tighter gun control. Fiends who want to do others harm with guns are going to find a way to do so no matter what the government tries to do. All things said above though, I am not against the government making it harder to receive a gun license. To prevent accidents there should be standardized testing to make sure those buying a gun know how to use it, just like the driving test we take to get our driver's licenses. A gun is going to be absolutely no good to someone for self defense or hunting if the person has no idea how to use it.
Post a Comment