Outlined by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), chair of the gun violence prevention task force, House Democrats
revealed their proposals for gun reform this Thursday. The plan mirrored the
heartfelt speech Biden gave last night rallying Democrats in Congress to
support Obama’s gun violence proposals which cited the recent shootings as a
call for the government to take action and Obama’s White House gun controlagenda that was introduced last month.
The plan includes banning magazines (a metal receptacle
inserted into automatic weapons that holds cartridges) holding more than ten
rounds of ammunition, requiring background checks for anyone purchasing
firearms as well as strengthening the current background check, funding for research in ways to reduce gun violence, addressing mental health, prohibiting those
mentally ill from purchasing firearms, improving security across school and
communities, solving gun trafficking, and reinstating the assault weapons
ban.
Democratic leaders supporting these reforms assert that they
are not violating the 2nd Amendment. Thompson stated, “I'm not
interested in giving up my guns, and I wouldn't ask anyone else to give up their
gun.” Him and many others use these claims to relate to and seem sympathetic to
those advocating for (the other side of? I would say, if that makes any sense?)
gun rights.
The amount of support for these reforms is doubtful but
supporters are still adamant in carrying them out. A source claims that the
American public has a renewed interest in the gun violence issue shown through
polls that show a majority of the sampled populations that would approve stricter
gun control laws. Those in support of firearms reform hope to use this
political pressure to their advantage.
3 comments:
I think the proposed measures will have very little effect on gun violence in America. I feel like the only reason these types of black rifles (I don't believe in the term "assault weapon") are being targeted is because they get attention from the media after a horrible tragedy like Sandy Hook takes place. In reality, rifles of any type are used in less than 1% of crime. Contrary to popular belief, an AR-15 is not very different in function from any hunting rifle of the same caliber (.223). In fact, the .223 round is much smaller than almost every common hunting round. The main reason guns like the AR-15 are targeted when it comes to gun control are cosmetics alone. It's black and it looks like something a soldier would use, even though no military in the world uses the AR-15 or the semi-automatic version of the AK-47. As for magazine capacity, I don't feel like a 10 round limit would save any lives in a mass shooting such as Sandy Hook. I've fired an AR-15 as well as plenty of handguns, which take all of 2-4 seconds to reload. Although I haven't been able to include everything I'd like to say, I'll wrap this up to avoid writing an essay. I believe that an assault weapon/high capacity magazine ban will do little to reduce gun violence, but it will harm law abiding citizens who enjoy the ownership and use of such items.
I agree with Marc that banning assault weapons will probably not decrease the likelihood of more tragic shootings because they are not usually used. Still, this does not change the fact that assault weapons are extremely dangerous and should probably not be in civilian hands. Tee NRA has state that assault weapons only make up a tiny fraction of the 230 million legal firearms owned by American citizens.
I am not certain if more restrictive gun laws will be effective. Great Britain once tried to restrict the use of handguns and the crime rate actually increased before they loosened up their laws. However, no one really knows what will work to prevent further gun violence. The NRA feels that armed guards will do the trick. Others feel gun laws should be less harsh. But whatever the problem is, the US has not yet fixed it. This article has some interesting ideas though, such as public health youth gun violence initiatives.
Thompson feels that restricting guns is not violating the 2nd Amendment. He is probably right as long as not all guns are outlawed. Of course, the Founding Fathers made that amendment so as to maintain a "well regulated militia." They also made it during a time when guns were less widespread, dangerous, and easy to obtain than the modern era. However, I think it is safe to say that they did not want criminals buying guns and shooting children to death.
Overall, I feel it is nice that the government is responding to the outcry and trying to change policy for the better. Whether or not it will work is another issue altogether. Though I honestly do not agree with Bennett that the US will turn into Nazi Germany.
I understand people's dubious attitudes towards gun control measures, since at least here in the States it's often hard to see concrete evidence that such measures are actually effective. But for those who say we shouldn't pass gun-control measures, what are we supposed to do otherwise? Sure, mental health research needs more funding and we could use some more cops, but I truly do think that gun control measures are a step forward in reducing violence. Other countries have much more stringent gun policies and subsequently less gun crimes. I think it is perfectly acceptable for people to own guns, but what frustrates me is when politicians say that we will turn into Nazi Germany, as Matt said. Please. Calm yourself and be rational. The truth of the matter is, though, is that these politicians are dramatizing the issue so that the legislation won't be passed.
Post a Comment