Since every time you read, listen to, or watch the news it
seems there is a new shooting somewhere, I thought it appropriate to address
gun violence and the arguments surrounding it. I, personally, have no problem
with guns, but I also have no solution to the current use and abuse of the
power and responsibility that accompanies guns. I have always been taught to
treat weapons as weapons, assuming guns are loaded and knowing how to use them
before given the chance to fire them. I
will not deny that gun violence exists, however I find the arguments
surrounding guns rarely offer true solutions to the real problem: the person.
As is typical with these sorts of issues, gun control has a
heated debate surrounding it and many passionate individuals on both sides. When
it really boils down, it seems the choices are extremely strict laws or no
change in laws, or even looser restriction for the legal gun owners. But there
are a few things each side wants. In the article I found on Newsmax, the
author, Karen Ridder, discusses some of the things each side believes in regards to the issue of gun violence.
Those wanting more gun control point out that a lot of
times, shootings are done by those who legally own firearms. They also point
out that there are places where gun control is not as strict, but those places
aren’t exactly safer. They are also advocating for background checks in hopes
of preventing guns from being in the possession of the ‘wrong’ people. Simply
stated, they believe stricter laws are the solution.
While this solution has merit I can’t help but feel it isn't enough. It doesn’t seem like it actually deals with the
problem. An entire decade of history, the 1920’s, is enough proof, to me, that
tightening control over something, even banning it, does not solve the issue in
any way. If anything, it could make it worse. Laws do little to stop
lawbreakers. However, background checks appear to be a good thing to implement.
While things like this can, I’m sure, be falsified, they would certainly bring
up any major red flags.
On the other side, people are citing the Second Amendment as
the sole reason needed to let them own firearms. They also refute the other
side’s crime rate arguments by pointing out that as legal gun ownership
increased, violent crime rates have gone down.
It makes sense that if every single person is carrying a
weapon, nobody in their right mind would dare attack anybody because they know
that person can defend themselves. Even if the criminal knows there is a good
chance that a dozen or so people in a given area own guns, I’m sure they would
give any thieving or attacking a second thought. The problem I see with this is
the probability of everyone being willing to carry a gun. Some people are just
not comfortable with that. The other thing is, criminals typically aren’t in
their right mind. That being said, if something should happen, the criminal could
be stopped before any extensive damage is done, or lives taken.
This issue has been debated for a long time, and every
argument seems to go in circles. Hopefully the happy medium solution will be
found and implemented. There will be laws that work, but everyone will have the
option to carry and own a firearm should they want to. Realistically, the
utopian society in which there is no violence, gun related or otherwise, probably
will never exist, and we must trust that individuals are raised and taught to
respect guns, be safe, and not murder others. I stand by my belief that it is
people who are the problem, not guns. The solution, therefore, is a lot more
complicated than laws or statistics.
References
Ridder, K. (2014). Gun
control pros and cons: 3 points on both sides of debate. Retrieved
September 27, 2015, from http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/gun-control-pros-andcons/2014/09/28/id/597212/.
This assignment was meant to give you practice doing a comparative analysis of opposing arguments. You only cite one source, and the other "side" to your analysis appears to be a compilation of the "people citing the Second Amendment" and thus, pro-gun people. Comparing specifics to talking points requires too much interpretation when analysis should be objective.
ReplyDeleteNewsmax, interestingly, is a very conservative web outlet. The "pros and cons" article cited a number of more liberal sites (like Mother Jones, etc.) as the source for statistics - but this was more an executive summary than a public argument for reform. Gun violence, because it so often involves innocent victims, can often evoke highly emotional responses. Similarly, strong passions also fuel the opposite side. Those passions make this a politically volatile issue.
Consider the difference in tone when an article supports particular reforms, as opposed to merely reporting on the conflict. Much reporting on this issue does point out how a high majority of people in the country - gun owners included - don't seem to mind the imposition of restrictions against criminals or mentally challenged in buying a weapon. Reporting on consensus, however, is not as juicy as reporting on political battle.
Good stuff here. Keep working.