A gun control proposal in memory of the Virginia Tech shooting was rejected in Richmond, Virginia this past week. The proposal pushed for an end to "sportsmen's shows" in which people can go and purchase guns with no background checks required. These shows serve as loopholes where felons and deranged people are able to purchase weapons where as they would be rejected at a local gun shop. Are these shows really the reason behind illegal gun procession? I'm sure that there are tons of ways to get illegal weapons in this country. Gun shows may be a small part of the problem but nothing more. I believe that there are many dealers that either buy guns legally and then sell them illegally or import weapons from other countries illegally.
Banning gun shows would be a start to getting guns under control in this country however to truly deal with the problem more must be done. The United States has the highest gun related deaths out of any country in the world. (MedicineNet.com) This problem needs to be addressed in an appropriate manner. I am not in support of a total ban on firearms. A complete ban would be a violation of the second amendment and I believe that guns are a part of this country's history. What I would propose is a ban on all handheld and assault weapons. I think this solution would take care of the problems that guns cause while still pleasing hunters and stark Republicans that want to hold on to their rifles. Handheld guns such as pistols are the real threat to safety as they are the easiest weapon to conceal. Most gun related deaths in the United States are caused by pistols. Think about it. People aren't going to be carrying around rifles with the intention of using them against others because there’s no way of easily concealing them. As for assault rifles, these are absolutely unnecessary and serve no purpose what so ever. I believe that these should be used strictly for military purpose and to be honest I have no idea how they are still legal for personal use today. Banning these types of weapons would not eliminate gun deaths obviously but I do believe that it would lower these deaths dramatically.
As I noted above the only guns that would be legal in my plan would be rifles and shotguns (not including sawed-off shot guns). This allows for people to still use their guns for hunting, which I see as the only reason for keeping guns around. I believe that by just simply eliminating these gun shows would not solve the problem. People that plan to obtain guns illegally from the shows will just find another way to acquire them. Gun control is a very touchy subject because even though the logical reasoning would be to eliminate them, not everyone agrees. I think that the plan I suggested does a decent job of accommodating both sides. Of course eliminating handheld and assault guns will not be easy but it’s a solution that just might work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08sun3.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In response to your post, I disagree with your proposal to eliminate the use of handheld and assault weapons. Other than being an infringement on our rights to bear arms as citizens, keeping a concealed handgun is one of the ways in which citizens can ensure some sort of personal protection. If even part of this right was revoked, such as your proposal to eliminate handheld weapons and assault rifles, there would be a plethora of resistance from several groups of people. The issue that is clearly at hand with your proposal concerns the banning of handguns, which is clearly a controversial issue. While there are only a few million assault-type weapons owners, about a quarter of all households in the United States contain a handgun. There are certain things that need to be brought up in discussing the effectiveness of a handgun ban.
Under the most optimistic circumstances, about 15 – 20 % of American households would ignore the handgun ban. In addition, if handguns were banned, tens of millions of American would be defined as felons for now possessing these newly-illegal handguns. This number of “gun criminals” would now be comparable to, say the amount of “drug criminals.” Another problem that arises with this plan is the how is the government going to get all the handguns away from the people who already have them? Can the government try to buy them all? According to GunSAFE.org, there are approximately 80,000,000 handguns owned by civilians in the United States. The government would have to compensate for these handguns that were bought legally. For example, say if the government agreed to pay $ 40 per handgun to civilians (which is a severe underestimate), the government would have to pay about 3 trillion dollars to “buy up” all of these handguns. This is a drastic price to pay in our already dismal economy.
In my opinion, I believe that there should be no ban on guns of any type for those with permits and guns that were legally required. However, I do feel that the government needs to be stricter on seizing illegally obtained firearms. Overall, taking handguns and assault weapons from the entire United States population is not a good idea because it is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, it is unfeasible to accomplish (there are too many people and too many guns in circulation), and would overall prove to be futile. The efforts would be futile because if criminals are not allowed to carry handguns, they will simply carry a rifle or after-market shotgun of some sort. I feel that the gun control issue is an issue that creates WAY too much controversy and should not be tackled until there are plans that can benefits both sides. But can that ever be done?
I think that the title of this article may steer readers away from its true topic, that topic being gun control. Yes, Virginia Tech was certainly a tragedy, I am not trying to take anything away from that, however you mention that the United States has the highest number of gun related deaths out of any country. Countless lives are lost and affected by guns every day, and not all of these instances are publicized. Enforcing stricter gun control laws now cannot alter the past lives that have been changed for the worst because of guns, however they may well lower the number of gun related deaths in the future. The rejecting ing of a gun control proposal in Virginia is not a betrayal of Virginia Tech, but rather a political move.
The issue of gun control is a major issue when it comes to politics and the differences between republicans and democrats. Democrats favor tougher gun restrictions while republicans oppose tougher restrictions. In order for any leeway to be made on this issue, a solution must be found that alienates neither party.
I agree with you that there are many ways for individuals who are determined to acquire guns to do so illegally. Although sportsmen’s shows where people can purchase guns with no background checks may not be the main arena in which these individuals are getting their illegal firearms, putting an end to these shows will be bound to have some effect. By taking away what appears to be the easiest way for people who would be rejected at a gun shop to acquire guns, you would at least be taking one step towards stricter monitoring of guns, or as you say, it would be a start to getting guns under control in the country. If this was to happen, individuals who are qualified to, and wish to purchase guns would still be able to do so at gun shops. Closing down the sportsmen’s shows would only cause individuals who wished to acquire a gun illegally to find other, not so convenient methods of doing so.
I also think your plan to only legalize rifles and shotguns maybe a compromise that democrats and republicans alike could possibly find acceptable. As you mentioned, banning handheld and assault weapons would increase safety, because individuals would have a much harder time concealing and transporting larger weapons such as rifles. I think that a total ban on guns would be almost impossible considering the second amendment, but I think that a ban on certain guns could work. It would allow hunters, who belong to a group that strongly opposes gun control laws, to still own weapons to hunt, but would take guns out of the hands of people who only intend to use them for harm. Your plan would also still allow those who claim to own guns for protection to keep a rifle or a similar gun in their home, where they wouldn’t be carrying it around all of the time, to protect themselves and their homes.
I'm sorry, but there's no way that Democrats and Republicans would ever come to a consensus on the issue of gun control. Gun control is an intrinsically American issue, which means there is and never will be a solution that would appeal to everyone, especially in a segragated 2-party political system. Because of the "American" nature of the issue, I feel inclined to share MY thoughts about the subject.
I understand that I may sound contrived in saying "guns don't kill people, people do", but how can you honestly deny this- especially given the title of the article. Guns had nothing to do with the Virginia Tech tragedy- of course, they were used in the murders, but it was the incredibly misguided young men who pulled the triggers of the guns who kill those students. If there had been stricter gun control in the state of Virginia, do you really think that committed individuals, like the ones capable of justifying the murder of the innocent, would have been deterred by a more lengthy process to acquire a gun? Of course not! They would have found a way and would have acquired one illegally. As long as their are rules and guidelines that govern our behavior, there will be people who defy them, circumvent the system, and do things that are "criminal". It is a paradoxical relationship between the desire for control and the enticement of disobedience. I'm not trying to minimize what happened, I'm simply explaining how gun control would not have changed the outcome. This goes for almost any law we have- as the severity of the deviation increases so too does our desire to control the chances that it will happen again. In turn, as people we allow our emotions to cloud our perception and we come up with the idea that taking guns away will stop gun violence. Look how easy it is to convince yourself that something works? This is exactly what the more liberal politicians are doing in Washington. They are playing off of our emotions and our concerns about the threat of guns that they are trying to ban them altogether. Even Democratic president Obama supports the posession of firearms in his involved "urban policy". Looking into the subject I noticed how the NRA pushed a mudslinging campaign which inferred that Obama wanted to ban firearms, but looking closely at his policy, his stance involves no such plan. Already you can see how guns and "gun control" are made into an issue. The topic is sensationalized by the media and in a 2-party system, you can't expect anything less than 2 sides, head-to-head in opposition over...what? An issue that was created overnight. Guns aren't the issue but our political system can be creddited with making it one. It will be interesting to see how Obama conforms to the pressures from his voting liberals, but no matter the issue is phrased, it will never be fully resolved, since naturally, nobody wants it to be.
I agree that something has to be done with gun control in America. There are high-powered sniper rifles that can shoot down a plane from 2 miles away that are currently considered legal. Since the Brady Bill expired, many gun control laws have been overturned. In DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court agreed that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional. When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they argued quite a bit over the Second amendment, and finally compromised by making the wording very general and could be taken either way. I agree that the ban on high-powered sniper rifles and automatic assault rifles should be banned, but Americans do have the right to own a gun, so it is impossible to ban handguns. Handguns, although they may cause most gun-related deaths in the U.S. are also the most popular type of gun kept by American homeowners for self-defense. As a result, I would consider it unconstitutional to ban handguns. The Virginia Tech massacre was definitely a tragedy and was very unfortunate, yet it doesn’t make it right to take away a basic American right. Very few countries still allow their citizens to “bear arms” and this shows one of the freedoms that most Americans take for granted every day. A big part of siding with banning or not banning certain guns has to do with money. The NRA is one of the most well funded interest groups ever. The Brady Center is definitely underfunded. One can tell just by visiting the two offices in D.C. The NRA has their own building with a huge shooting gallery and gift shop. The Brady Centerhas half of one floor in an office building. I also agree with Carl in that it is impossible for the store to lose such an item
In response to the ban on hand held guns and assault weapons, it can be agreed that it would be incredibly difficult to collect all of the firearms and that many problems would result. There is virtually no way for the government to collect every single handgun and there is still the issue of compensation for the guns that are taken. The government certainly cannot just seize property without paying for it. There are people that invest thousands of dollars into gun collections that would deserve repayment. As stated in the original post, guns are a part of this culture and are guaranteed to citizens under the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. There have been debates about the subject for years and people will never come to a consensus on the issue especially at a time like this when there are so many more pressing issues that need to be addressed (the economy, the War in Iraq, etc.). The banning of guns is highly unlikely in this country and it’s easy to see why. The plan in the original post was just an idea for one possible solution. Gun shows being banned is a step toward stricter gun control but it could prove meaningless as there are many other ways to obtain illegal firearms. It is known that the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre did not acquire his weapons from a gun show thus giving the whole article a sense of confusion. Many people get guns illegally through importing and underground trading. Since it would be too much work to ban hand held guns and assault rifles, maybe America should just keep doing what it’s doing and keep chipping away at the problem one bill at a time. However, they can’t even get a bill passed to ban gun shows. The process of gun control will continue to be a heated issue that many will disagree upon; gun owners need not to worry yet.
Post a Comment