What Will You Do For Your Country?
I am a gun owner. I own two shotguns given to me by my
grandfather, a former skeet shooting champion of California. I believe that
citizens have the right to own a weapon to defend themselves against enemies
foreign and domestic. But I also believe that as we are forced to address the
issue of assault weapons in the wake of recent tragic events, I have a responsibility
to sacrifice a portion of my right to own a deadly weapon.
The Other Side
There are many arguments in favor of keeping society the way
it is with respect to our constitutional rights and that small probability of
any gun control legislation making any real difference. Besides providing sense
of security, gun owners usually use their weapons to engage in some sort of
sport or game. Many feel as if they have
a right to own any type of gun for personal protection, and also because they
believe the second amendment is self-evident. These opinions must first be
acknowledged and addressed, before any progress can be made.
The 1%
I know quite a few responsible gun owners and I trust them. However,
I also come from a city where the basketball team had to change its name from
the “Bullets” because of the prevalence of gun murder. I am not naïve enough to
think that everyone will use his or her protective weapon for security and
sport. With reference to the mentally ill criminal responsible for Aurora, some
people are just not good. People must understand that even if 99% of Assault
rifle owners will use their weapon for considerable means, that one percent is
the one that is responsible for the lives of hundreds of innocent people. One
might say in response to such a comment that deeper background checks will
solve the problem, but the fact of the matter remains that he personally, did
not OWN ANY OF THE GUNS!
It's Only Logical
We need to come out of our comforting shells of naivety,
recognize the flaws in our society and try to fix them step-by-step. If there
is any possibility that defining and banning assault weapons will save lives
then what are we waiting for? Where are our priorities? Many say we have to
protect our rights, but do we all fail to remember our social contracts with
our country? We promise to give up certain things in exchange for protection
and security. Why else would we pay taxes? Why then, can we not sacrifice the
right to own a heinous weapon for the security of our children?
I recognize your point and agree with the part that we should sacrifice a portion of our right in order to protect the country. Also, you could address the capacity of the assault rifle to shoot more rounds in less time and so do more damage than many other guns. However, if criminals are willing to break the law against murder, they are just as willing to break a ban on assault weapons and continue doing the same damage. How would a ban effectively prevent criminals from obtaining these weapons when they do not respect the country’s laws? Given that it would make it more difficult for their acquaintances to buy the weapons, but if a person intends to do a dirty deed, they will do whatever they can to execute it. If we desire to deter these people from taking advantage of the average citizen, allow the average citizen to even the score and defend him/herself.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree I could have addressed the capacity of the assault rifle to inflict much more damage but due to a lack of space I hope that point was implied. I appreciate your insightful point that criminals will find ways around our laws like they have since the birth of our country, but in response I will reference the Sandy Hook incident once again. My post points out how the Sandy Hook murderer did not own any of his guns, his mother legally bought and used them. I hope my point is clear that there is a possibility that the kid probably would have inflicted much less damage had his mother not had the ability to purchase such heinous weapons. Therefore, his "dirty deed" would more than likely have consisted of the taking of much fewer lives, and my goal is to cherish every human life possible through any means possible.
DeleteI like your point about giving up rights for the greater good but I believe that you don't fully understand its meaning. Yes technically you are a gun owner of shotguns but not of assault rifles or anything of that nature. So in fact you would not be sacrificing anything at all unless you were going to buy of course. If we start with this is there any stopping or will be go until everyone is disarmed and unable to defend themselves. Yes a lot of deaths come from guns but are they all assault weapons? What about the deaths that come from vehicles, does it make sense to make everyone walk for the rest of their lives or is that a right that we have as well? Yes I believe that measures need to be taken but there are ways that are more logically and able to help us to keep our rights. Some ways are those that include laws and government enforcement of laws.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that banning assault weapons will lead to the disarmament of every American citizen is called a slippery slope logical fallacy, and is simply illogical. Furthermore, your next argument alluding to cars is simply non-sequitur; the conclusion that many deaths come from vehicles does not follow your initial argument against people having the right to defend themselves. Lastly, you suggest that the only "logical" ways to solve the problem of gun murder in America are through laws and the government's enforcements of such laws; this is exactly what I am arguing for, a LAW created and enforced by the GOVERNMENT.
DeleteYou make some good points, but many individuals see it as their duty to protect their families, and assault weapons are one choice they use to do so. Also, how do you define assault weapons? There are many differing definitions, some equating them with machine guns and others pointing out that many of the differences between assault weapons and other guns is mainly cosmetic. How do assault weapons differ from other guns in your opinion, and will an outright ban on them reduce the amount of deaths or violence in this country? What would stop criminals from, for instance, just turning to other types of guns, or from smuggling more assault weapons across borders? However, I do see it as a great tragedy that so many lives were lost, and you're right that there are many ways for people to get guns without weapons (gangs for one).
ReplyDeleteThe point that I am trying to make is that while defining and banning assault weapons will obviously not solve our nation-wide problem of gun violence, I do believe we owe it to ourselves to give it a try. I find it far more productive to take action with these things instead of wanting around for the next mass murder. I believe that the "definition" issue has presented itself as a bump in the road to progress that we simply can't get over. Quite frankly, I don't care what they define assault weapons as, so long as we make some sort of effort to create bumps in the road for murderers to overpass.
Delete