In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora Colorado, at
the premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" discussion has started again--as often is
the case after a random violent shooting--in regards to gun policy in the United
States. Three positions, two argued by
opposite ends of the political spectrum and one in the middle, tend to be the
most popular recently. Each position however,
has its flaws and the best resolution has nothing to do with the guns
themselves, but with the people behind the trigger.
The
first opinion held by those of the extreme left is to do away with guns period,
even though the banning of a freedom contrasts with the basic tenet of
liberalism. Liberalism believes in
allowing the most rights to a citizen possible--liberals tend to be for
decriminalizing drugs, keeping abortion legal, and proponents of gay
marriage. Yes, guns are dangerous but
for some Americans they are also a way of life.
Some people in this country love to hunt with firearms, believe in them
for a form of self-defense, or are just interested in the entire gun
culture. A true liberal is for the right for any citizen to practice any
religion, they are not a proponent for banning religion. That is also true with guns. A liberal should encourage any qualified
person to own a gun, not for the right to be rescinded.
The
liberals who take this position understand that a right--an Amendment actually--will
be taken away. However, they feel the
ends justify the means. England with
strict gun laws has around 50 deaths per year caused by firearms, whereas the
United States has 10,000. England is
just 1/5 the size of the United States in population and yet .05% less gun
related death. With this evidence it
would seem like the obvious answer is to just remove the guns. But there are lies, damn lies, and then
statistics. Switzerland, which
conscripts a majority of men in their 20's and 30's into the militia, has up to
3 million guns in circulation and yet only 34 murders caused by firearms as
reported in 2006. Switzerland is an
example that more accessibility to guns does not mean more gun-crimes. So why should we restrict gun ownership at
all?
That is
the opinion of the extreme right, that no rules should restrict the ownership
of guns. Americans should be able to buy
any gun they want, and own as many as they want. While some Americans who feel this way are
genuine in their opinion, others, like the National Rifle Association, are
pushing this agenda for their own economic interests. When the NRA scares Americans that the
government is trying to take away their guns, gun sales go up. Make no mistake, the NRA's main agenda is to
increase gun sales. That is why they
fight tooth and nail against any form of gun restriction. What is best for the country is not best for
their interests, and so they are not interested in gun reform. But with 10,000 deaths a year something has
to be done. But what should we do?
The
middle of the road opinion argues not for guns to be banned completely, but only
certain types of guns, such as assaults rifles, 100-round clips, silencers, and
extreme weaponry that is above the needs of hunting or personal defense for
one's home. Deer hunters don't need
AK-47s, and a shotgun would be enough to protect your house, not an M-4 with
SOPMOD kit. However, this opinion truly
ignores the intention of the 2nd amendment. We were not given the right as Americans to
own guns for the sake of hunting or personal defense. We were given the right to own guns to rise
up against the government if necessary. If
that time should ever come, how could we ever be successful in overthrowing a
tyrannical government, if we don't have access to the best toys to fight back
with?
The
real solution has nothing to do with the types of guns that can be bought, but
the kind of people that can buy guns.
Switzerland proves that responsible people trained and prepared in
owning a gun, can be responsible with a gun.
We have to instill that guns are only in the hands of responsible,
law-abiding adults. Laws that require
background checks, only require that licensed
gun sellers do background checks.
However, if you are at a tag sale or a "gun show" and unlicensed you can
sell a gun to whoever you want. Rational
people of any political party should not have a problem with this. If you fail a background check you should not
be able to own a gun. It should not take
more information and research to attain a cell phone then to own a gun. No one should be able to buy any type of gun,
without any type of background check, and conversely anyone who passed a
background check should be able to buy any type of gun. To be against this reasonable precaution for
something as powerful as a gun, is not someone arguing for the rights
guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, but someone just arguing for the agenda
of the NRA to allow more guns sales, without regard for responsibility of gun
ownership.
1
1
1
