As of Tuesday, the House of Representatives will postpone their vote on a bill increasing the ease of buying silencers in wake of the tragedy in Las Vegas. Currently, buying a silencer requires extensive background checks and a specialized permit. This new law would reduce this to the federal background required for the purchase of handguns. While the voting on this bill has been postponed, congressional republicans have shown no inclination that they will not vote in favor of this bill.
Many Democrats are coming out fervently against this bill, obviously citing the gun massacre in Las Vegas as further evidence of a need for tighter gun restrictions, not looser ones. Republicans remain staunch in their sentiment that guns are not the cause and remain integral to the freedom and safety of America.
I personally feel that we cannot address the gun violence in our nation without some semblance of gun control. I am willing to concede that other factors such as mental health are involved in these acts of violence, but I still feel the ease of purchasing and obtaining guns remains the largest obstacle in solving this problem, and that making it easier to buy silencers is going in the wrong direction.
What do you think? Should this law increasing the ease of purchasing silencers be passed? Does America need tighter gun laws, or is that the wrong method of solving this problem? Why?
17 comments:
I am right with you on this one, Cameron. I do not think that this law has much strength nor sense behind it. While the Constitution does include having the right to bear arms, restrictions on silencers for weapons do not impede this right at all. While I do mostly agree with the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people," I also believe that guns facilitate the ability to harm one another. The first thought that comes to my mind when reading this is that most of the support for no or limited gun control is that it allows self defense, but a silencer on a gun would not encourage self defense except in the most bizarre and unlikely of situations.
I agree with what you talk about as well Cameron. I feel this law is not necessary. I feel like the government should be focusing its attention on gun control rather than focusing its attention on making it easier to obtain silencers. Like Keegan has said, "silencers on a gun would not encourage self defense." Many polls stated that the top two reason people push for gun rights is for hunting and self protection. Silencers is just bizarre and the government should focus on the broader issue.
While I do believe in the right to bear arms, I don't think that silencers are necessary for that, just as Keegan said. Having a silencer doesn't increase your ability to protect yourself, and therefore it shouldn't fall under the second amendment, so I hope this bill doesn't pass. People started to flee at the sound of the gun, and if the shooter had a silencer, more people would have died.
I think the main issue with gun laws is that they vary so much from state to state, though that is kind of the point of a federal government. I believe gun control is necessary to an extent, as the founding fathers likely didn't expect guns to become as powerful as they are today, but as the government gets more powerful weapons, we too need more powerful weapons in case we need to protect ourselves from the government, which was the point of the second amendment in the first place.
I agree that silencers have no purpose in the hands of everyday civilians. If one wishes to go recreational shooting in range, they do not need a silencer. Giving easy access to silencers would make it easier for would-be criminals to acquire and use them, making mass shootings far more deadly than they already are. While I agree that mental health is another big issue in the gun debate, I believe the most important restriction should be upon the guns themselves.
I think gun control laws in general are controversial. The constitution was written over two hundred years ago, and stated right to bear arms, however, as Aech stated, they could not have for seen the power of them now.
In the Las Vegas shooting, (I don't enjoy going into hypothetical, but...) if the shooter had a silencer, people would not be able to hear the sound of gunshots, which could have led to more victims. Many people took cover after hearing the gunshots, which would have been less loud and prominent if a silencer was used.
I think gun laws should be more tight,in order to prevent people from obtaining them easily, but on the other hand, serial killers and murders have the black market and other measures of getting their hands on guns and weapons if they wanted to.
I completely agree with Keegan. Silencers don't pose a large impediment when it comes to self defense. I would also argue that guns don't necessarily increase ones protection either. I'm sure in many situations it can, but I would think that there would be a higher likeliness of conflict if more than one person in an encounter have a gun. If someone gets nervous or feels threatened, they're more likely to pull the trigger. Very rarely do people bring a gun with them with the intent to kill, like in this latest incident. I don't believe the bill should be passed, but I do support one's freedom to owned a gun. I might not be able to relate, but I know that many people value guns dearly, and I wouldn't want something of personal value taken away from myself.
I agree with my classmates in that silencers are not the largest of our concerns. I personally cannot see the reasoning behind having a gun to protect oneself against a gun. In the Vegas tragedy, even if one of those victims did have a gun at home, it was not on their person when the incident happened and it could not protect them. Same could be said about other shooting incidents. Priority should be placed on gun control and the source of the problems. Silencers are just one part of a whole.
I agree with everyone above in that silencers are not a huge problem right now, and they really aren't needed by everyday civilians. Wouldn't silencers allow people to get away with more crime? The only real reason to use a silencer is to shoot something quietly, and I think that if someone seeks a silencer, the buyer's reasoning for why they need a silencer would be very sketchy. I do think that in our current state, we need stricter gun laws because even the gunman had a background check done, but that didn't stop him from committing those heinous crimes.
I think that there needs to be tighter restrictions on guns. I find that guns only create more violence; they do not always protect people. Also, I think that there is no reason to pass the law regarding silencers because the sole purpose of a silencer is to be able to shoot something without noise. Like Andrea said, at the Las Vegas shooting, it is possible that more lives could have been lost if the shooter used a silencer. I think it is important that the silencer law does not pass as that could simply create more chaos and fear, and that there should be stricter laws regarding guns as there have been many shootings and innocent lives have been lost.
I am a strong advocate for gun control. Too many tragedies have occurred in America as a result of gun violence, and while the current restrictions and mandates are a step in the right direction, more needs to be done. In Japan, for example, the gun laws are extremely restricted, and saw 11 firearm related suicides in 2008. America had 12,000 in that same year. Countless other countries have proven that stricter gun laws prevent massacres such as the ones we have suffered over the years. It is also my opinion that while sick, disturbed people will always try to hurt others, having loose gun laws increases this risk and provides opportunities for more fatalities.
Additionally, other interpretations of the second amendment state that the right to bear arms relates to the state's rights to form militias, not for the common people to own firearms unchecked. I believe this interpretation is more fitting to what the Founders had in mind when creating this law.
Gun control laws, in my opinion, need to have tighter restrictions. Silencers do not serve a purpose as they only draw more attention to those who want to commit a crime. And as Andrea stated, If a silencer was used in the Las Vegas shooting, more people would have been hurt. The National Firearms Act regulates silencers and makes it harder to buy them, but it doesn’t necessarily eliminate the ownership of silencers. I think that there should be more focus on guns laws as a whole because this is the main concern and the main reason why there are massacres. Also, identifying the underlying beliefs as to why individuals own guns in the first place is important to understanding why people own or want guns.
I agree that more gun restrictions are necessary, especially considering the tragedy in Las Vegas. While factors like mental health could not be controlled, if this criminal was not able to purchase a gun, then lives would be saved. There is no possible situation where having free gun restrictions would raise the standard of living and save lives. Though the 2nd amendment is a right stated in the Bill of Rights, it is definitely outdated. It was also legal to own slaves, meaning that not everything in the constitution should be a continued practice. There is no other solution to the tragedy of Las Vegas and no other way to provide solace to the friends and families that lost love ones, than to tighten gun restrictions.
Having read up on this issue on my own, I've come to be aware that the shooter had no criminal history what-so-ever and was regarded by peers and family as someone mild and unlikely to be a threat of any type. The guns that he had possessed was also purchased legally. This leads me to believe that no matter how strict the law may be on gun possession, it is impossible to determine when a good person can break down and lead to the mass shooting of innocent people. The best way to avoid this is to withheld the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, or at least really limit the number of guns a single household can possess. I believe this is the best and only solution.
Buying guns is a private transaction, and has no negative or criminal implications. The vast majority of such purchases do not lead to gun related crimes. It's not about whether people need guns or suppressors. The government should not be able to limit a private transaction that has almost negligible related outcomes. The American government's primary purpose is to protect the American people's liberties, including privacy when it comes to purchases of legal firearms and accessories, and not to overreact when something happens. While any loss of life is tragic and regrettable, the people's liberty should not be chipped away because of this. Prosecution of perpetrators is the right way to do it, as those perpetrators have interfered with another person's safety, but the government should not be punishing those who are innocent.
I believe that gun control laws need to be tightened. Although I believe in the right to bear arms, I feel as owning anything more than a handgun is excessive and should be illegal. This does not infringe with the second amendment. I do not see the point of silencers; a silencers job is to be able to shoot something quietly and in stealth, which I feel is only relevant towards gun violence and mass shootings. I feel as if silencers would just allow more people to get away with crime. Additionally, I don't really see why people need more than a handgun to protect themselves. I feel as if assault rifles are excessive and used more to kill than to protect. Because of this, I think the most important thing to do is limit gun laws by restricting people to only purchasing handguns.
I do not believe this law should be passed. I also believe that gun laws should be tighter. We don't need more gun laws but rather better gun laws on who can buy and carry guns such as background tests or approval from doctors verifying that the person is sane. Silencers will only make the problem worse as it makes shootings less noticeable because silencers are used for stealth.
Personally I think that gun laws should be tightened, but understand the argument people have about using guns for self defense. However, I don't see how a gun silencer would be used in self defense so it is a bit baffling to me that a bill like this is even being discussed.
Post a Comment