Total Pageviews

Thursday, February 24, 2011

The Dominant View Of Those Who Are Pro Gun Control

Note: I have chosen to try and keep my own views/perspective/what side I’m on, for a later blog. As I write these blogs I will try to maintain neutral as much as possible until I disclose where I stand. Please keep in mind the difference between gun control and a gun ban. I will try my best to keep both separate, as I will focus on gun control only.
Many on both sides of this debate have agreed that the 2nd Amendment can be understood only in proper historical context and each has important claims about the text. Many crucial questions are raised by the text of the 2nd Amendment: Who is the Militia? Is Militia, in the context of time, is different from then to now. Does "the people" to the entire body of citizens, whether members of the militia or not? Is the right to "keep and bear" arms unique to the military? We need to understand what is meant when we say that guns cause harm. Guns kill because other individuals use them to kill people or, through negligence, abuse the power and kill others. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has said it best in that "guns don't kill people, people do." On the contrary, though they state to be neutral on the topic, the American Civil Liberties Union is referred to as the "states' right" view. They have long stated that the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right to bear arms.[1]
One can argue that murder is the act of an individual, and guns are not people. But that argument can be found somewhat irrelevant. It is true that guns are objects and objects do no evil. However, not all objects are ever created equal. Well, hypothetically speaking, what if one day someone claimed that "nuclear bombs don't kill people, people do," or “napalm doesn’t kill people, people do.” Although in one sense these claims would be true, in a more critical perspective, it would be ridiculous. Obviously guns are not Weapons of Mass Destruction because they are not as dangerous, which can mean that some guns have legitimate use. But where do guns fall along the danger spectrum of, if there was one, WMD and missiles to spoons and pencils? So then we must think about what has been purposefully made to cause harm to that causes harm but was not intended to. For example, guns and WMD were created to defend and inflict harm on others or objects and we can agree on that. However, though pencils for example, weren’t created to cause harm, one can still poke another person’s eye out, inflicting harm. Another example would be of cigarettes, which were not intended to cause harm but would eventually kill people from lung cancer.

Firearms, unlike pencils, are naturally dangerous. Guns were invented and designed to cause harm. New guns are redesigned making it easier to assemble, clean, accurate, powerful, all to inflict more damage. Though cars can hurt innocent bystanders, cars are being made safer for the driver, opposite to that of the goal for weapons. Just knowing that guns are inherently dangerous, we as a society need to create control so that these dangerous objects do not get on the wrongs hands. Under these factors we should regulate weapons. We must show how risky firearms are before we can abolish or restrict them. Also, we must determine whether or not, if any, there are benefits to where they should be permitted, even if they are risky.
The more widely available firearms are, the more that people will be murdered, will die from accidents, or commit suicide. Gun supporters state that by having guns more available to the public, criminals will think twice before committing a crime.[2] They say that would be robbers would be less likely to commit the crime if they knew that the person they were about to rob possibly had a gun as well. It has also been suggested that burglars would be less likely to continue with the burglary in fear that the home owner was waiting for them with a gun. Furthermore, arming every single citizen in this nation will not effectively end crime.




[1] Web Page: American Civil Liberties Union (2008). "Second Amendment: Gun Control'" http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

[2] Web Page: “The Gun Control Debate: Crime and Firearm Use Today.” (1997) http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/GSR716A_KUECHLER/linda-r.htm

Friday, February 11, 2011

A Quick Look AtThe Controversial Topic

Do gun control laws lead to a less violent country or does it leave law abiding citizens unprotected from violent criminals? Do we need stricter gun control laws? Are the laws already in place being enforced? As of 2009 the U.S. population was at 307 million.[1] According to the gun manufacturers, there are about 300 million firearms owned by citizens as of 2010. Of those 300 million, about 100 million are handguns.[2] So we can see that 100 million hand guns can become a problem if the wrong hands get a hold on them. But can anyone buy a gun? Well obviously someone who is not a citizen cannot, but the list does not stop there. A convicted felon, a fugitive, the mentally disabled, etc., just to name a few, are those categorized as not being able to own a firearm.[3] Even if someone qualifies for example, in certain states like California, there must be a background check and they must have obtained a Handgun Safety Certificate. I just recently went and took the test, and successfully passed. California requires that the individual taking the test receive at least 75% (23 out of 30 questions correct).
Even though there are all these restrictions, somehow weapons seem to land on the hands of the criminal. There is a two side supporter section for this gun control topic. There are those who believe that guns kill people, but there are also those who believe that guns do not kill people, but rather the person shooting the weapon does. This controversial topic can seem at times very black and white with no gray area. We constantly think of not wanting criminals to have the option of having weapons, but at the same time most of us would not want to see ourselves helpless without protection against the criminals. Most Americans will choose to live in fear with guns rather than to live in fear without guns. It all comes down to where we, as a society, draw the line. However, that decision is not as easy as flipping a coin and having it decide for us.
If we really think about it, this nation’s early history is filled with guns. As early as the conquest of the native indigenous people of this land, guns were in play. In those days, it seemed as if though only power was considered to be justice. Americans had to protect themselves and their freedom. Americans reached out for guns in the belief that the power the weapon held was justice, consequently only creating a more subconscious anxiety amongst each other. So we can see by this nation’s history how firearms have been instilled in the people and how weapons reflect an image of protection and power. This is why I find it hard to believe that stricter gun laws will actually be put in place. In the blogs to come I will provide information which show both sides of the spectrum. I will further try my best to explain the controversial topic on whether or not the Second Amendment was meant only for the militia, or now known as the National Guard, or for an individual citizen.




[1] Dataset: "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008." U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
[2] Web page: "Firearms Fact Card, 2010." National Rifle Association http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
[3] Web page: "Identify Prohibited Persons." Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html