This week, we learned about the role guns play in America and heard the perspectives from the different sides of the gun debate. Those who believe that the government should not put any gun control laws into place have several reasons supporting this opinion. The first is that they believe that this is our second amendment right, and any sort of restriction on guns is a violation of that right. The next is that putting restrictions on guns won't stop the amount of gun violence in the U.S as most of the gun crimes are a result of illegally obtained guns. Another reason they don't want gun control is because, for a lot of people, guns are a vital part of their culture. Many people consider hunting a large part of their lifestyle, and putting restrictions on guns seems like an infringement on their rights especially because they've personally never done anything wrong.
On the completely other end of the spectrum, there are also several reasons supporting the side of pro-gun control. The first reason is that there have been too many mass shootings and gun crimes, and they believe that the government needs to step in and put restrictions on guns to reduce the amount of gun violence in the country. The next reason is that the second amendment was put into place in order to protect civilians from tyranny, and that is no longer a fear that people in the U.S have. Another reason is that people believe that the guns that are accessible to the general public are of a much higher caliber than the government ever considered when putting the second amendment into place. Right now, most of the guns that are responsible for mass shootings are military-grade semi-automatic guns that are able to kill and wound several in just a few minutes.
These are just a few of the reasons supporting two sides of the gun debate. The gun control controversy runs extremely deep and is very complicated. Personally, I agree that yes, it is our second amendment right to bear arms. However, I don't think it is necessary for us to have access to military-grade weapons of such high caliber. In this case, I truly believe that there is no good reason for civilians to have access to such strong weapons and that these weapons are causing more harm than good. For those that feel that hunting is part of their lifestyle, they should just be able to hunt with handguns that aren't so strong. In addition, I also believe that there needs to be some restrictions put on guns. People shouldn't be able to carry them in public places like airports or schools., or anywhere where they could pose a serious danger to public safety. Everyone who wants a gun needs to have their gun licensed, and they need to have a permit or a license in order to legally carry a gun. Right now, guns are way too accessible to the public, and the guns that we have access to are way too extreme. What do you think?
I agree, there should be some gun restriction on places like the airport or schools. There's really no reason to have a gun on the airport or schools. And I really think that the government should put more restriction on accessing a military-grade weapon. The government should do frequent checks on the person that owns a military gun or any type of gun. Hoping that will at least try decreasing the amount of guns that are for the community(for the public) and decreasing the deaths in United States.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your final conclusion. I think that the use of guns should be restricted to a certain degree. Our second amendment rights should be upheld, but not at the expense of the public's safety. I feel that assault weapons or any other guns of high caliber should be banned, and anyone who wants to purchase a gun has to go through the required process to do so (i.e background checks and obtaining a license.) I also feel that more action needs to be taken to fix the loopholes in the gun control laws, such as a lack of background checks at gun shows and straw purchasing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your article. I think that gun rights need a careful balance of partisan politics to reach a middle ground. I think that one of the most immediate concerns is enforcing universal background checks, which would close the "private sale loophole" which accounts for around 20% of gun sales. I think that while most citizens do not need military grade weapons, it's unfeasible to demand for complete elimination of guns and is imperative that policymakers push for a partisan agreement that favors lives over party views.
ReplyDeleteI think guns are not completely necessary. Maybe if you live in bear country or something. But yeah, what is the reasoning for military grade weaponing? In the "District of Columbia v. Heller," the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment applied to possession of firearms for self-defense. Assault rifles are for assault, not defense. Therefore, our civilians have no need to be "protecting themselves" with AK 47s.
ReplyDelete