This may be a bit off topic from what we've talked about in class, but I couldn't help myself. The following is a quote from Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the Opinion Pages of the New York times:
Just since the killings in Tucson, another 320 or so Americans have been killed by guns — anonymously, with barely a whisker of attention. By tomorrow it’ll be 400 deaths. Every day, about 80 people die from guns, and several times as many are injured.
I just don't understand why we haven't done anything to fix this problem. I understand the U.S. constitution tells us that we have the right to bear arms, blah blah blah. That doesn't mean we can't make stricter laws to prevent people who shouldn't own guns from owning them. There has to be a way to respect one's second amendment rights yet still inhibit their ability to kill people. Any ideas? Opinions on the topic? What kind of effect would stricter guns laws have on our economy?
I agree that people should be able to carry arms, but I also think that the type of weapon needs to be limited. What possible use can a person have for needing an M-16 assault rifle? None, except the feeling of power that comes with pointing one of those things at someone. To me, there is no logical reason for needing anything more than a hunting rifle, or a handgun. I understand the need for self protection, and i am quite certain that a .40 caliber Glock would work just fine.
ReplyDeleteRichard, you more eloquently expressed the jumble of words I wanted to respond to this post. Death by guns is as unnecessary as people losing their lives to drunk drivers. With gun control should also come education. I know people who have lost loved ones due to gang violence. If a stronger educational system was in place from day one, would there be less gang involvement and less need for gun control?
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of Richard's and Laura's points. I think we should absolutely by able to carry arms, however, without any restriction to the type of weapon (that is if you're educated about firearms and have a clean record). I say without any restriction because guns like an M-16 assault rifle are part of our country's military history and thus highly collectable by many people (which collectable guns can be extremely expensive and account for a huge part of the gun industry). I understand why Richard is saying there's isn't a logical reason for needing anything more than a hunting rifle, or a handgun. However if you were to limit everyone to just hunting rifles/pistols the gun industry would damn near dissolve into nothing. I would also be willing to bet that the majority of people that do have a concealed weapons aren't caring around an M-16 for personal protection. I think the people that are carrying around these kinds of guns not only own them illegally but are probably somehow tied into drugs/gangs. Either way I think the biggest problems lies with uneducated people owning firearms. I have been around guns my entire life and I myself own many guns (hunting is a huge part of my life) but what I'm getting at is I was educated about guns from day one and I know the most important thing is safety no matter whether you're out in the woods or on the range, etc... I think another big problem is the purchase of illegal guns through the black market. Dave, do you know what percentage of these deaths are from gun owners that legally purchased have their guns and have them legally registered? Perhaps there could be more restrictions on why type of accessories can be purchased with certain guns, for example handguns. I believe the Arizona shooter was carrying a semi automatic handgun with a 30 round extended clip. Why is it necessary for someone to have a 30 round extended clip for a pistol??
ReplyDeleteI think that firearm education should be mandatory for each person who purchases a gun(I'm not sure if it already is or not). I'm willing to bet, though, that most of these killings are done by the owners of illegally purchased guns. So, I think it would be difficult to actually force education upon every individual that owns a gun considering how many gun-owners purchase them from the black market as opposed to through legal means. Even if there was more education on firearm safety, would this change the parts of society that are so heavily involved with gang/drug-related violence?
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution could not have possibly predicted the future of technology or society. The founders wrote in the second amendment to ensure self defense and perhaps prevent a repeat invasion by the British. Although, many people still invoke the sacredness of the constitution whenever anyone questions gun control. The right to bear arms does not stipulate that an average person may own an automatic weapon that is capable of going through police armor. Stricter gun control laws would be expensive to enforce and would probably cause mortal outcry on behalf of tea party members, but I believe the idea is worth looking into.
ReplyDeleteI know this is not a funny matter, but I couldn't help but think of some words of wisdom from Chris Rock when I read Dave's first post. "Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5,000 dollars! That way, in case someone does get shot, you just gotta assume he had that comin..."
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to imagine that government will be able to enforcce any form of gun control regulation due to the underground market. My only thought would be to sharply increase the punishment for carrying an illegal fire arm and to increase the punishment for gun crimes in hopes that it deters those who would other wise carry one with them all the time
Just another funny Chris Rock quote you all may like, "Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those people waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one.”