I came across this very interesting article while doing research. With gun control, we know that there are two side’s people advocate for. One being more gun control the other side being less gun control. This article proposes that we eliminate guns all together. This is taking pro-gun control to a whole new level. The logic behind this viewpoint is that if we want something to stop posing a problem why not eliminates it as a whole. For instance, if someone wants to eat healthy the simple solution is to cut unhealthy food out of their life and the problem will be solved.
This article titled “It’s Time to Ban Guns, Yes all of them” gives a very unique perspective on this heated issue. The author explains why the idea of banning all guns can be feasible. He then refutes and potential counter arguments one may have about his viewpoint. He points out that there are two potential reasons as to why people don’t find banning all guns to be possible. The first reason being that there is a reluctance to impose elite culture on parts of the country where guns are popular.” The second reason is that there is a readiness to accept the Second Amendment as a refutation. The article does an excellent job of discussing any possible refutations and addressing them. According to the article, the first amendment gives us the right to refute the second amendment. The public doesn’t have to have the “right to bare arms” if we don’t want too. “That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.” In my opinion this is very well said and valid.
I think that this article makes very great points about gun control. I believe this is truly a viewpoint we need to consider. Problems will continue to persist as long as guns are around. Logically removing them from the situation would be very beneficial.
This piece is a great look at both sides of the argument. The “con” side seems to offer arguments that are far fetched like protection from the government and foreign invaders, which are a bit out of line considering the billions of dollars we spend on self-defense annually. The “pro” side of the argument is backed with valid points that entail the importance of saving lives.
Getting rid of guns in all would be out of line and unfair; but what we want are strict regulations in order to secure others don’t have firearms. If you deserve a gun, then you can be awarded one, but with proper background checks.
As the gun control debate continues to twist and turn throughout political parties and the entire nation, the communities of people wrongfully affected by the hot debate remains the same, as well as the facts: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States of America had more than 33,000 firearms deaths: 70 percent of all homicides, more than half of all suicides, and hundreds of accidental and unsolved deaths involving gun violence.
The astounding statistics put America in a tough place; however the solution is clear. Fewer firearms will dramatically decrease violent consequences. In addition, a better policy on who may obtain such fewer guns would also improve the cruel climate. As of now, citizens with criminal records, mental illness, drug addicts, etc. can not legally own a gun. However, the law requires gun dealers to conduct background checks on prospective holders. The problem: the background checks are not intense. The checks often do not detect mental illness because individuals with serious mental illness never receive the needed “adjudication” that denies them the right to possess. Many mass shooting aftermaths have been executed by criminals with severe mental disturbance. Select and more thorough background checks would help significantly reduce the national threat known as gun violence.
If action is not taken to decrease the guns dispersed and riddled throughout our nation, horrendous acts could continue. So, no, Wayne LaPierre (the N.R.A executive vice president) who infamously stated that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”. The statement was awkwardly, uncomfortably and wrongfully delivered after the tragic Newtown, Connecticut elementary school shooting.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is legislation that recognizes that that firearm could threaten and take the life of another.
This video is a cry for help. Some of the biggest names in Hollywood have came together to fight this battle of gun control. We have lost many kids, family members and friends to situations that could have been avoided with stricter gun laws.
This video views thing from another perspective. It is essentially advocating for guns. They attempt to show that guns will protect us but fail to address the fact that they can hurt us in the same fashion. If everyone carried guns for self defense its bound to get into the wrong hands. This is what causes mass shooting such as Sandy Hook etc.
According to a recent New York Times article, Missouri’s loosened gun laws have proven to have an adverse affect on gun killings and gun crimes as they continue to increase. Sabrina Tavernise paints a startling depiction of the realities that have crept into society within the south midwestern state following changes in gun policy that took place in 2007. For over a decade prior to the changes, Missourians were subject to an extensive, in-person background check within a state’s sheriff office in order to acquire a gun permit. But in 2007 the legislature repealed this process and made several other radical changes to gun policies. In addition, Missouri also lowered the legal age to carry a concealed gun to 19. Tavernise goes on to explore how Missouri’s loosened gun laws have proven to be a natural example for all other states regarding gun policy.
With data collected by Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Tavernise points out some disturbing statistics. First, despite an 11% decrease in the national gun homicide rates in the six years following Missouri’s changes, the state’s rates adversely increased by 16%. In addition, between 1999-2006 Missouri’s gun homicide rate was 13.8% above the national rate and between 2008-2014 Missouri’s gun homicide rate was a shocking 47% above the national rate. These statistics give only a peek into the negative effects the loosened gun laws have had on the state and the safety of its’ population. While there are a few researchers who find the data slightly dramatic, the general consensus among scholars is that the increased rates are due to the loosed gun policies.
Sly James Jr., the mayor of Kansas City, has been a huge advocate for abolishing the changes and reestablishing many of the gun policies that were eliminated in 2007. He labeled the increasing fun homicide rates in the city as “slow-motion mass murder.” Despite his best efforts, not many other politicians within the state agree with his desire to tighten the laws.
Tavernise implies the disturbing realities we can take away from Missouri’s changes in gun policy. I believe that while not all data can be definitely conclusive and point solely to gun policies for increased homicide rates and violence, we cannot ignore the obvious effects it has had on the state. We as a country cannot turn a blind eye to the example Missouri has proven to be over the past few years.