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has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.”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 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.
In an intimate interview on Time, James Jacobs, director of Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law, a professor of constitutional law, and the author of Can Gun Control Work?, explains some of his deep sentiments regarding gun control. He claims that “things are really better than they’ve been for decades” in our society in terms of gun crime. He proceeds to discuss the decrease in violent crime and gun crime the United States has witnessed since the early 1990’s despite the increasing number of firearms. At first glance his facts seem valid and difficult to argue but when you take a further glance into the facts he has presented, there are some serious holes in his argument. It is important to address gun violence for the United States as a whole, however, each state facilitates varying gun laws and policies so this feat is impossible when talking statistics. Jacobs’ claim that things are better than they’ve ever been is a skewed perception of reality when examining gun crime. The reason his statistics relating to the decrease in violent crime and gun crime since the 90’s are invalid is because the policies have also tightened up. Gun laws are nowhere near where they were in the 90’s so making such a comparison is practically useless. A more effective and efficient approach to evaluating gun policies is to examine state specific gun laws and compare data from before and after policies changes; similar to the statistics examined in the New York Time’s article on Missouri gun policy.
Jacobs furthers his argument by insisting that our constitution, a document that is over 200 years old, limits our capability of changing gun policies. Such limitations seem idiotic in light of the consequences gun crime and violence hold. Should we all turn a blind eye to hundreds and thousands of deaths from guns because of this outdated constitutional right?
Jacobs truly outdoes himself in another topic regarding mental illness and gun policies. In general, politicians on both side of the gun debate have agreed that more should be done to keep guns away from the mentally ill. Jacobs attempts to seem politically correct in saying that it is extremely difficult to label who is mentally ill and what constitutes mental illness and proceeds to say that creating such a label will hinder anyone with such illness in their decision to seek help. Jacobs is attempting to appeal to the audience’s pathos and he does make a valid point that it is difficult to define what constitutes mental illness, however, the topic of mental illness should not be taken lightly especially in the light of gun crime and violence. Jacobs dances around the topic and sticks to his sentiments that gun policies should not be increased even in an attempt to forbid the mentally ill from obtaining them. As I had mentioned, it is generally agreed upon that state policies should prevent the mentally ill from acquiring firearms but Jacobs reasoning against it is essentially that it would be too much work to accomplish this. Does this constitute not doing anything?
Not only do Jacobs claims lack validity, he seems to purposely tip toe around the questions that he does not have a strong answer to. All in all his arguments against increased gun policies are extremely weak and express a lazy attitude towards possible constructive change.
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.
Gun control has been a controversial topic across the nation for a long time now. Some people say restricting guns is an awful idea. They believe it is the right of all American citizens to bear arms and it serves as protection for millions of people. On the other hand, many Americans see guns as extremely dangerous, especially with all of the mass shootings going on in The United States in recent years. Since December 2012, when the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place, 892 mass shootings have happened since, with at least 967 people dead from these shootings. Other notable mass shootings involving guns include Virginia Tech’s shooting in 2007, where 33 people were killed including the gunman, and the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting in 2012, which claimed twelve lives. Gun supporters have their reasons, but gun control and regulations needs to be increased, as guns are too deadly and dangerous to continue being put in the hands of mentally insane people.
With at least 300 million firearms estimated to be present in America currently, a shocking statistic from the website, The Trace, approximately 40 percent of people obtain firearms without a background check. This is very scary for America, as there are so many firearms across the country that could be used by citizens who should never be able to buy a gun. Unfortunately, this is a big factor in why mass shootings occur. If background checks and gun laws can be enhanced and improved, firearms can be put in safer hands, while those who are trying to use guns for extremely wrong reasons will have a much tougher time acquiring weapons. These intensifications of gun laws could save this country from the tragedies we seem to experience every 2 months. Safety is obviously key in this argument, but are guns really keeping us safe as they take thousands of lives at the same time?