On The Road – Elma – Eclipse Trip
3 hours ago
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Gun Control Backlash Against.... What Exactly?
Without Obama acting upon his campaign promises of gun control policy, guns rights advocates are still acting as if they are under political attack. They are riding that political capital to get their legislation passed, and I don't see how any of this legislation is necessary. Does not being allowed buying more than one handgun a month violate our fundamental rights? Is there something innately wrong with not allowing firearms in bars? There is enough violence that happens in bars, and we don't need to add an idiot with a gun to that chaos.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well, let me state that I am absolutely pro gun rights. I'm sure these advocates are more against Obama himself than they are against his policies. As illogical as that sounds, Americans can exercise their second amendment rights WHENEVER they want, as long as their weapons are registered and they themselves are legally registered to own a weapon, concealed or not. People in favor of gun control are hilarious, actually. They state that guns kill people and that reducing the number of firearms in the U.S. will significantly reduce the number of murders and deaths. If anyone buys that, your intelligence has been incredibly insulted. People kill people. Guns may facilitate violence, but they're in no way responsible for death. If the government controlled the distribution of weapons in this country, people would find other alternative means of killing people. In other words, there wouldn't be a solution ... we'd be right back to square one.
I guess pens misspell words too, huh?
"Guns may facilitate violence, but they're in no way responsible for death."
Thats true but in the hands of unresponsible people aka humans, they take lives of many people. So instead of getting rid of guns, lets get rid of people? ;)
"If the government controlled the distribution of weapons in this country, people would find other alternative means of killing people. In other words, there wouldn't be a solution ... we'd be right back to square one."
Thats true but I'd say its harder to kill with fists or a knife than with a gun. *BAM* (supposing the person has somewhat decent aim) This will raise the chances of survival of victims of gun violence right?
In my opinion, limiting the amount of guns people have in their households is a good choice. If you have a handgun and some bullets, why do you need more? I mean really now. One per month? I understand if its more for the sport of hunting than protection.
"People in favor of gun control are hilarious, actually." Come on Andrew, don't look down on other people. There are many countries with significant amounts of gun control that have significantly lower murder rates per capita.
That said, there are other countries, like Canada, that have equally low murder rates. So whether gun control would solve our problems is uncertain, because there is probably a wide range of other factors that influence murder rates in the US.
But, as Lily said, it is considerably more difficult to kill someone without a gun. It's much easier to struggle against a knife or someone choking you than it is to dodge a bullet.
There is, also, a psychological element that exists when a person is holding a gun. A gun gives a feeling of power and control that probably isn't offered by a knife or a fist fight, because those two require struggle to be effective. A gun is instant gratification; simply pull the trigger, and whoever you want to die, dies.
It does seem wise to me to place limits on firearms. If anyone could buy a gun, bad things would (and do) happen. We should not, for example, allow the mentally handicapped and convicted felons to purchase firearms, and mixing firearms with alcohol by allowing them into a bar also seems unwise.
But this all raises a bigger question: what on Earth do we need firearms for? Other than killing people? What is their purpose? Some would argue hunting, but I doubt any experienced hunter would use a handgun. Some would say it would provide a means of resisting the government if it ever became tyrannical. This, I think, is the best argument for pro-gun rights advocates. But I doubt that, if the government did become tyrannical, a bunch of pistols would do much against the US Military.
Something that bothers me is that we tend to look at the rights written in the Bill of Rights as "natural" and "inalienable". I don't think that they are. If they don't serve a utilitarian purpose, then they're not beneficial rights. They need logical justification. But so many people say "they're in the Bill of Rights, so there!" and that really isn't an argument. And the response to that is, "well, why are they there? What is there purpose?" And too many people are dumbfounded by that question. They have the rights, and they want to keep them, even if they can't justify them. Does this necessarily apply to Gun Control? It might, but I don't know enough about the subject to say.
In any case, what I ask of everyone is not to use the argument from credible source. It follows a formula, "well, they/it says it! So it must be right!". Everyone assumes that documents like the Constitution are infallible, when they aren't. They were written by fallible human beings, and if someone can't justify their own beliefs without pointing to a document that does not justify them, but merely restates them, then that person doesn't know what they're talking about.
"The second protects the rest"
http://www.gunnyragg.com/second.htm
It is kind of interesting that resistance at the level of the individual is what held off the British so long and eventually cast them off entirely when the United States first came into being. Having guns was the means by which they backed up their voice.
In modern society, guns are symbols and tools of great power. Guns mean business; guns "talk". Even in the world theater, the guys with the "big guns" do all the talking. This shifts the balance in terms of influence so that people who do not have said "big guns" to back up their interests lose out.
I think the spirit behind the right to bear arms is an effort to ensure the legitimacy of the voice of the people which is impotent without the knowledge that each individual has the means to "talk", to mean business.
One could say that that is why we have an army now. Point taken, but, no matter how outlandish it may seem, the same right protects the voice of the people from being cut off by our own government. If only the government has the guns, then only the government has the means to speak with authority.
The people need guns because they need to protect their voice. Speaking is only part of the way; the people must also be able to do something about it; that is the essence of democracy.
It is indeed unfortunate that in modern society the gun has become the ultimate way to "do something about it" and is used abusively. The gun cannot be uninvented and limiting guns only changes the access of the average citizen; criminals can get guns regardless of the law.
The government can work on two levels: first by educating the general public on gun safety etc. and then by keeping track of and screening people who buy guns, in order to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.
A gun in the right hands is democracy's insurance.
I liked your comment Will. It was very persuasive. It certainly persuaded me.
Post a Comment