It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

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has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.”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.


Part 2| John Oliver: Gun Control

Oliver continues to investigate Australia’s successes with gun control policies. With humor, Oliver urges America to emulate Down Under’s gun legislation.

Refutation: The Break-Up

America shares a faithful yet rocky relationship with its own Second Amendment. Although ratified since its 1791 debut, the amendment is causing our country too much heartache.

Like many extensive and exhausted relationships, it becomes difficult to keep in mind what triggered the initial desire. The budding nation and the piece of legislation began its romance in a dark time, no but actually a dark time; electricity was not so much a thing then. Anyway, the two managed to avoid tricky turmoil because the purpose of the amendment was evident. The Second Amendment was established to protect the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It enabled citizens to organize a militia, contribute to law enforcement, dismantle tyrannical government systems, stop invasion, combat slave revolts and secure self-defense. Did I fail to mention that the year was 1791?

If you intend on assembling a militia to overthrow a totalitarian government in 2016, good luck with the 18th century musket-type weaponry.

The logic that the intentions of the Second Amendment applies to contemporary life reduces Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, etc. Meanwhile, it is understandable to value self-defense; however, we collectively have to express more concern regarding the preventable deaths.

Furthermore, my favorite argument, a hearty piece of wisdom that rolls right off of the tongue: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” If this is the pillar beneath your pro-gun stance, why haven’t there been more mass shooting interrupted by good guys? Statistics prove that within the past 30 years, zero mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians. With a third of our nation strapped, a lack of guns doesn’t seem to be the issue.

We’ve had a strong run but it’s time for America to say “it’s not me, it’s you.”    

An Affirmative View: Gun Control, The numbers, The tragedy

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.