I go back and forth on this topic. On one hand, I don’t
understand why anyone would need an assault riffle in his or her home. I find that if guns weren’t around the very
argument for needing them for protection would be irrelevant. However, on the other side, I think about the
individual’s rights. Is it my right to
deny someone possession of something if it is doing no direct harm to me? I see a good example of this with video
games. Do we ban violent video games
because of the potential influence it could possibly cause on an individual’s
perception of reality? It’s difficult to
know what one person is going to do with a gun versus another person, which is
why they are so controversial to begin with.
I grew up
in the south and in areas that were not the safest. As a young, white female, I never once felt
like I was in any danger being in these areas.
I learned that most crime that happens with guns happens within a group
of people that associate with each other.
I knew that no one was looking to purposefully harm me or my
family. Generally, if you are in a
situation that involves potentially getting shot, you most likely know you are
at risk for instances like that. While
that obviously not true for every scenario, in my experience it was the case
for most. Since moving to Arizona, I
have never felt so uncomfortable around guns.
While I never saw guns back in South Carolina, in Arizona, people can
open carry, and it honestly makes me feel more uncomfortable than safe. While that could just be my lack of
experience and familiarity around guns, seeing them makes me uneasy. Knowing there in my house or in the house of someone
I am visiting makes me uneasy. They seem
so severe and so deadly and I just feel uncomfortable around them. That is how I feel, but that doesn’t mean the
rest of the world should feel that way too.
I recognize that and this is why I don’t think there should be a ban on
guns; however, I do think we should ban having assault riffles unless you have
a special permit or permission to carry them.
Banning anything just causes more crime, especially with something like
weapons. I also believe that if guns
were banned, criminals who really wanted to commit a crime would find a way to
do it with or without a gun.
When
thinking about mass shootings, it’s an unfortunately reality that maybe these
could have been avoided, or at least reduced without a gun. With that said, I don’t think a ban on guns
will solve the root of this problem either.
There is obviously a mental health issue in our country, and it should
not be avoid through talk about banning guns.
The gun was the method to problem; the state of mental health was the
cause and root of the problem.
On the
other hand, the basis for the 2nd amendment was adopted in the 18th
century back before we had wide spread police.
It was establish to protect us from the government, which is obviously
not what its purpose is today. Because
of this, I think a ban, or at the very least, a rewrite of the amendment should
be done because it is simply not relevant to today’s society. Guns also contribute to a vast majority of
violent, deadly crimes in America. If
you look at other country’s where guns are banned, the deadly crimes rates drop
significantly. A study from the Harvard
School of Public Health found that data from 36 developed countries have shown
that wherever there are more firearms, there are more homicides. (New York
Times, 2012) There is research after research supporting the decline in
homicides and violent crimes when stricter gun laws are in place. In Japan, a country with very strict gun
laws, only 11 people were killed with guns in 2008 compared to 12,000 deaths by
firearms that year in the United States. (New York Times, 2012) To put that
into perspective, there are 122,800,000 people in Japan and that year is not an
anomaly. (Hickey, 2013) Japan also has strict laws prohibiting people who do
not have a license for using a gun.
Failure to follow this rule can result in up to 10 years in prison.
When
looking at statistics and also weighing personal rights and freedom, I don’t
disagree with owning a gun; however, I think it is imperative that control over
guns be dealt with in a manner that makes sense. People want guns for sport, hunting, fun at a
shooting range, etc., so what is the problem with allowing a background check, enforcing
references, and having to have a good reason for wanting a gun? If you want the right to own something that
could potentially cause harm to another person either intentionally or inadvertently,
you have to go through the process of allowing that.
References
Hickey, W. (2013, January 15). How
Australia And Other Developed Nations Have Put A Stop To Gun Violence.
Retrieved May 12, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1
In Other Countries, Laws Are Strict and
Work. (2012, December 17). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of
ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub.
No comments:
Post a Comment