"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." - The Second Amendment
In light of all the recent mass shootings, the government is now considering new gun laws and many conservatives, some of my friends included, has become very vocal against gun control. Some even burst out in rage over it (e.g. Alex Jones). I support gun control though, and polls show most Americans also support reasonable gun legislation. Yet, I don't hear their support for gun control as much as I hear those of the loud minority supporting gun rights. I don't blame people for not wanting to get into politics, as I don't particularly enjoy these debates either. I care though, and I want my voice to be heard. I do not want to be the silent majority anymore. So this blog is about my thoughts on various arguments against gun control:
In light of all the recent mass shootings, the government is now considering new gun laws and many conservatives, some of my friends included, has become very vocal against gun control. Some even burst out in rage over it (e.g. Alex Jones). I support gun control though, and polls show most Americans also support reasonable gun legislation. Yet, I don't hear their support for gun control as much as I hear those of the loud minority supporting gun rights. I don't blame people for not wanting to get into politics, as I don't particularly enjoy these debates either. I care though, and I want my voice to be heard. I do not want to be the silent majority anymore. So this blog is about my thoughts on various arguments against gun control:
It's a Constitutional right.
For starters, the Constitution is open to interpretation and I have yet to hear a detailed interpretation on it from the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not say you are entitled to any weapon or that you should not have to do background check or register guns you own. The Second Amendment even says "a well regulated militia", which could be interpreted to mean some oversight is actually quite within the Constitutional boundaries. The Second Amendment also says the militia is "necessary to the security of a free State." This sounds more to me like it gives our country the right to have military power to defend ourselves from our countries. Even if that's now how some people interpret it, the Constitution can be amended if we the people wanted. If you have no other good reason than the Constitution for your sense of entitlement to own or carry guns, then you are just a big kid crying over the possibility of getting your toy taken away.
We have to defend ourselves from the government tyranny.
I could understand this if we lived in a place like Iran or North Korea, or if we were back in 1776. I know we all have a hard time trusting the politicians to do the right thing but we have processes in place that allow us to deal with it in more peaceful ways. If you're unhappy with your politician, you can vote them out. You can also run for office yourself. Are you afraid that our government would turn against its citizens? This sounds like conspiracy theory to me and it implies people in our military would oblige them. Our men and women in armed forces uniforms are believers in our freedom and our way of life. I find it very difficult to think that they would turn their weapons on their own people.
We have a right to protect our homes.
No one would argue you have the right to self-defense and protection of your property. Just remember there are potential consequences of gun ownership. I have an extended family member who committed suicide with a gun. I also know a child who was killed in an accidental shooting in his own house. Own one if you really want, but be sure to get responsible owner and firearms training. Also, remember that preventing an intrusion in the first place may go a long way in keeping your home protected. Keep your doors locked, set alarms on entry points, and don't open the door to strangers. Even if you had a gun in the house, you may not get to it fast enough or have the ability to act under duress.
National background checks are intrusion on our privacy.
Background checks are routinely done to verify personal data for many reasons. We use them to screen potential renters, nannies, doctors, potential employees, etc. for any information that may impact your decision. Banks often do financial background checks to determine credit worthiness before approving loans. Insurers may verify your health records during their underwriting process. So why is a national background check so reprehensible when it comes to owning guns? A background check could help keep people with a history of violence or mental illness from obtaining weapons illegally.
Criminals will find ways to get guns illegally anyways.
So we have to make it easy for them? There is a difference between someone who is determined to go shoot people and someone who will shoot people just because they can. If a person had to jump through hoops to obtain guns they may think twice about the thought of shooting someone.
Rocks can be used as weapons. Should we ban them too?
Every analogy I've heard compares apples to oranges. Guns were designed to kill, and some were designed to kill many people. Most proponents of gun control are most concerned with the latter.
We should use harsher punishment instead to deter gun violence.
Harsher punishment would probably help but is only one means to an end. Having multiple forms of deterrence increases the likelihood decreasing gun violence.
It's the culture of violence that's the problem.
Maybe this country's obsession with guns created the culture of violence. Could be the other way around but who's to say what came first, chicken or the egg? Regardless, many people are supportive of reducing the culture of violence and that is certainly worth pursuing. However, risk mitigation is not done through addressing one risk factor, but by addressing as many as possible.
It's the people who kill, not guns.
When it comes to gun violence, it is people with guns that kill. Let's not forget guns are part of the equation. The whole exercise on gun debate is about trying to prevent people from killing with guns. We want to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people so help us come up with the solutions instead of passing the buck all the time and fighting every step of the way.
We have to address mental illness.
Yes, we do. Some understandably are concerned that the discussion of mental illness will be forgotten with all the debate on gun control. Our country does need to do more to help people with mental illness and the recent shootings have highlighted that. It's not just the mentally ill who kills with guns though. Some kill with guns out of rage and some by accident.
Some of the newer assault weapons make my hunting easier.
Second Amendment does not protect anyone's right to making their sport more enjoyable or easier.
It infringes on personal liberties if I can't have certain types of guns.
We all forgo our personal liberties on a daily basis. I don't want to walk my dog on a leash but I do for the sake of others when required or appropriate. Some nudists might complain that having to wear clothes in public infringes on their personal liberties. No one ever really gets to do everything they want and there are good reasons for it. Americans unfortunately seem to have this culture of self-righteousness and disregard of what's better for the larger group. They have this delusion that their successes were built on their own and they have to answer to no one. I'd like to see these people go find an island to live on with no contact to outside world, and let us know how much they can do on their own.
What the Obama Administration is considering won't work.
Well, at this point they are just considering things. If there are flaws in their proposals let's address them constructively. Let's use facts, logic, and reason to collectively come up with a solution rather than let emotions and sense of entitlement to guns dictate our actions. Our biggest obstacle to coming up with a solution are people who are obsessed with guns and their unwillingness to allow any restrictions on them. High-capacity magazines ban, national database for background checks, and registration requirements all sound good to me. I don't think I've heard yet how they will control secondary markets of weapons, but I have heard the need to invest in law enforcement being mentioned. What has the NRA or other gun advocates done to reduce gun violence?
We should arm our teachers with guns.
Our already underpaid teachers should be free to focus their efforts on educating our children. Let's not distract them by encouraging them to take up firearms and training. Some are doing it on their own accord for fear of their lives, and that's fine. It would be unfortunate though if the quality of education in this country suffers anymore than it already has.
We should post armed guards at schools.
Let's not forget an armed law enforcement officer at Columbine could not stop the shootings there. Virginia Tech also had its own police department but that did not stop the tragedy there either. Also, I don't want to see our schools, hospitals, and churches to turn into Fort Knox.
If more people carried someone could stop a shooter on a killing spree.
Maybe some people would feel safer if more law abiding citizens carry. I, for one, would be more uncomfortable if more people started carrying. Law abiding citizens they may be, but there's no guarantee the average Joe would be a good shot. I'd be more concerned about getting caught in crossfire. There are also enough people with bad tempers out there and a simple conflict could trigger rage shooting. No amount of training is going to make everyone a good shot. Leave the concealed carry to trained enthusiasts or professionals.
More guns is the solution.
For every other vice; such as tobacco, alcohol, junk food, etc.; we encourage people to consume less of it, or at the very least consume in moderation. Somehow though, the NRA think this logic should not apply to guns and more people should own and carry guns. Of course the NRA would think this because it is self-serving. Just as gun advocates fear what would happen if people didn't have the right to bear arms, others fear more guns will lead to more shooting. The answer is not all or nothing here. We should aim to strike a balance and have the right amount of firearms out there.
---
Well, I suppose I could go on and on but I probably got my point of view across. I know there are people who disagree and will have their own counter arguments. I'm not here to debate though, since I've done enough of it already and don't think I will change my mind. I don't expect to change the minds of some people who are against gun control either. Maybe the opinion of one person doesn't matter, but the opinion of many do. The gun advocates are constantly making their voices heard. I want to encourage others who feel the same way to do so too.
---
Well, I suppose I could go on and on but I probably got my point of view across. I know there are people who disagree and will have their own counter arguments. I'm not here to debate though, since I've done enough of it already and don't think I will change my mind. I don't expect to change the minds of some people who are against gun control either. Maybe the opinion of one person doesn't matter, but the opinion of many do. The gun advocates are constantly making their voices heard. I want to encourage others who feel the same way to do so too.
