Will Gun-Control Really Help to Improve Social Safety?

Gun control has became a huge topic nowadays. Since there are more and more crimes happen in the U.S., people begin to think that gun is such a dangerous weapon that it should not be something that is so easily to get. In this way, more and more people become to favor the gun control policies. However, in my opinion, gun control law can not make the society safer; worse, it can bring even more danger to the citizens.

The exist of the second amendment is reasonable, because of the this, people can protect themselves. However, more and more people prefer the gun control policy means that people believe that the new policy can bring a safer society for them, this is not the case. According to the FBI statistic, the murder weapons do not just include guns, there is a large percentage of other weapons. If a person wants to kill someone, gun is not the only fatal thing he can use. The gun-control policy is not helping to decrease the crime rate, it is only helping to limit the rate of gun violence. For example, ISIS did the massive killing in Manhattan which kills eight people. There is no gun involved in the killing, there is only a truck. There are too many ways to make the society unsafe besides guns. If there are so many things are dangerous, then what is the point to only limit guns?

On the other hand, the gun-control policy can only limit the legal guns, however, there are even more illegal guns in the society than the legal guns people buy from the legal market. According to Dan Noyes, criminals always can get a gun since there are always sources for them to get illegal and untraceable guns. In this way, the new gun-control policy can only limit the legal guns, such as the guns that people bought to protect themselves or keep it at home. According to The Washington Post, most gun crimes are responsible to those who borrowed a gun from someone else or untraceable guns, it is as high as seventy-nine percent. On the other hand,, only eighteen percent of the gun crimes happened with the legal owners of the guns. By this statistic, the most gun violence happened with people who do not own the guns. This shows that there are so many ways criminals can get a gun to process illegal events. In this way, the gun-limit policy is taking away the protection for the citizens who are actually responsible to the society and give even more convenience for criminals to kill people and make the society unsafe. Criminals gets guns from black markets, illegal deals, or even home-made guns. Because of the variety of the source of guns, limiting guns by the federal government is so inefficient since government will spend too much on searching black markets. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there are 2157 of gun violence in 2017 are home invasion. There are even so much cases of home invasion happens with no gun-control policy, how much it will be when the protections are taken away from the citizens?

More gun equals to less crime is my opinion. Under the same power, which means everyone has a gun, the balance between the citizens and criminals makes the criminals have less chance to implement crime, since everyone has a protection. In this way, I argue that the gun-control not only would not decrease the risk of gun violence, but also would take away the power and the protection people hold and give criminals more chances to commit crime.

Image Source: The Daily Beast

 

Gun Control: Obama’s Time to Act is Now

Photo Source: News Daily

The two extremes in the gun control debate must find a middle way in order to assuage the heat of the debate. Following the mass murder in Newtown Connecticut, the debate has grown to be volatile. Since the massacre, President Obama has presented his rationale in supporting steps to more controlled gun policies. The President understands that complete gun control is impossible because the Constitution is nearly impenetrable. The second amendment states, “the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (Amendment II). A bill that does not violate the second amendment and is still effective requires strenuous work in Congress. As of today, 2,033 people have been murdered by guns since The Newtown tragedy and certain liberal states are becoming impatient, while the republican states are becoming aggravated (Slate). For the President, the time to act on gun control policies is now.

With the majority of Colorado siding towards democratic policies, gun-control bills have already been passed. According to MinnPost, the Centennial State has “hosted to two of the worst gun massacres in recent years” and is now seeking action against guns. The Colorado House of Representatives passed four bills on February 28, 2013 that will limit gun ownership in Colorado: “ammunition magazines limited to 15 rounds; a requirement for background checks for all gun transactions; a requirement that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks; and a ban on concealed guns in stadiums and on college campuses” (MinnPost). The Senate, who is mostly democratic to a lesser degree than Colorado, has not yet voted upon these four policies. The President has proposed similar gun legislation in his State of the Union of “an assault weapons ban, background checks and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines” (Fox News).  If passed, those on the side of gun control will have won a battle, but not necessarily the war. If one of the policies were to violate the constitution, federal law would trump state law and the policy would be declared impossible. While some states have leaned toward gun control, others are taking the exact opposite approach.

Missouri, a southern conservative state, has a few extremists who want to take action towards banning gun control protests. Though

Photo Source: NY Times

this law is practically assured denial, a “Missouri lawmaker is proposing to send colleagues to prison for introducing gun control legislation” (Fox News).  It is not the attempt of lawmaking that is important, but rather the point that Missouri will not tolerate gun control. In fact, every attempt to create a bill has an equal and opposite reaction. Missouri’s “Republican-led Legislature has taken a different approach — more guns, not less.” One Senate committee is even trying to broaden the gun laws by declaring the right to bear arms “unalienable.” The policy would reflect the Constitution’s Preamble, however would no make much sense. The founding fathers did not consider the right to bear arms unalienable. If they did, the second amendment would not be necessary. I do not think a law to extend the rights of gun owners would be beneficial to the morality of America. However, the increase in weaponry could alleviate the Federal deficit. A country that prioritizes its economy over its integrity is a country doomed for failure.

The President has laid out his plans for America’s gun legislation, now it is up to Congress to decide the extent of the power of a bill that is to be passed, or any at all. There will always be tension between those for and against guns, but the only fair way to act is to find a median that minimizes opposition. The two extremes’ propositions are practically impossible to pass in America today. Thus, the only resolution to such a complex problem is through negotiation and acceptance by both sides through warranting leeway for the greater good of the USA.

Colorado Shoots for Gun Control

Ever since the shooting at an Aurora movie theater last summer there has been a national rise of gun control proposals to stop these unfortunate events from happening again. Also with the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting gun control has become a popular debate topic in politics. This debate over whether or not to enhance restrictions on firearms has become a constant focal point for state legislators this year. Gun control is an issue that the United States has been dealing with for a long time. It is very hard to find a solution that both sides would agree with, but since these recent shootings there has been more pressure into finding an agreeable solution to gun control.

With these shootings the United States is trying to figure out how they can reduce gun related violence. We must act fast before another tragedy occurs due to gun violence that results in multiple deaths. There is one state that has been pondering tougher gun laws since the Columbine school shooting in 1999, this state is Colorado. Colorado has had recent experience with gun violence due to the Aurora “Dark Knight” shooting. This state has lived under the shadow of two of the worst mass shootings in United States history. Gun proposals are being pushed hard by state Democrats this year due to the recent gun shootings. In the article from New York Times lawmakers in Colorado have moved closer on passing a package of new gun restrictions this past Friday. Colorado’s House of Representatives gave approval to legislation to require background checks on private gun sales and also placing limits on ammunition magazines.

Both Republicans and Democrats were paying close attention to this issue to see the results of this topic. State Representative Rhonda Fields who is a Democrat said “There is a common thread that we see in these massacres” he believes that these mass shootings are happening because “They’re using high-capacity magazines.” Since they are using high-capacity magazines it gives them the ability to unleash as many bullets as they can to fulfill in committing these mass shootings and killing off as many people as they can with the ammunition they have. Many Republican legislators argued that the proposed magazine limits would have little to no effect on gun violence. Jared Wright, a Republican who is State Representative from Fruita, says “It makes no difference to public safety if there are 10 rounds in a magazine, whether there are 15 rounds in a magazine or whether there are 30 rounds.” Personally I agree with State Representative Jared Wright on how making magazine limits will have little effect on gun violence. By trying to change the size of the magazine of a gun will not effect or stop people from causing another tragic event from happening again. I believe that there needs to be more drastic gun control laws so we can stop these shootings from happening. Republicans also are not in favor of the background check proposal because they say people that are buying guns from a federally licensed gun dealers must already undergo a background check in Colorado just like in every other state that is under federal law. Republicans state that all of these new proposals for gun control will not stop criminals and felons from committing another mass shooting and I agree with them. I do want to see stricter gun laws but these proposals will have little effect on gun control in the United States.

There are many aspects and views on gun control and citizens of the United States should research and learn about the topic before giving their own opinion about it. What I learned from reading this article and comparing it to our government class is that there’s a difference between finding a solution to a problem and the politics behind the solution. Both sides have to agree on the solution and it needs to satisfy each of the sides view on the problem.

Gun Control- All Actions Have Consequences

Any time someone hears the words “Gun Control”, all that comes to mind is whether it is good or bad. There are too many people that are willing to simply ban guns without realizing the consequences of taking such swift action. First of all, it is a constitutional right to own a gun, and that will not change. Some may say that it is only one amendment, and it is not a big deal if we trash it. If we allow our government to break a chunk off of the document that defines us as a country, where will they draw the line? The government could then suggest the same thing about our right to free speech, and slowly tear apart our rights one by one. This may be a fairly extreme scenario, but to make the best decision we must observe all causes and effects.

There are many people who take pride in owning a gun, and they aren’t all uneducated hicks. The people who use their weapon properly should not be blamed, and neither should their gun. A common slogan of pro gun owners is “If guns kill people, then mine must be defective”. There is no reason to point a finger towards the guns themselves, because it is the person wielding the gun that should be held accountable.

On a similar topic, even if certain powerful guns are banned, how are we supposed to react when a criminal does get a hold of said weapon? Making something illegal doesn’t remove the possibility of a criminal ignoring the law and using it anyway. When evil people realize that they have the better weaponry, their chances of getting what they want would greatly increase. When we remove the scenario where we, as innocent law abiding citizens, could fight back, bad people will feel more confident that they will succeed. It would turn an act of random violence into a terrorist situation. The New York Times states  that if more people own guns, criminals would have to be more skilled. On the other hand, if less people own guns, then anyone could become a criminal. One wouldn’t need a special skill set to commit an armed crime.

The world is forever advancing, specifically in technology. Ever since the firearm has been introduced, it has been and will forever be a part of human life, at least until something more advanced is invented. While the idea of “Gun control” is well and good, no amount of political power can remove the guns from existence. The United States government cannot go around passing laws just to make people feel better. A government needs to lead, not simply people-please. If our government is going to make rash decisions like this, then I would hope that we can at least determine the lengths we go to that will ensure our personal protection, such as possessing a firearm.