The NRA and many other guns owners state the case that guns are a deterrent against "bad people." In fact to quote NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." Now, never mind I find this simplistic labeling of "good guy/bad guy" a childish view when discussing a complex issue--for example George W. Bush speaking about foreign policy--this opinion also ignores the scenario where the bad guy with a gun is suicidal. What does he care if you end his life, if he is already prepared to end his? He may not get to carry out his ultimate goal, but you can learn from Kamikaze pilots and the 9/11 attacks, suicidal attackers cannot be deterred. But yes, they can be stopped. I mean we cannot deny that the Aurora shooter chose the one movie theater out of seven in his area that was a gun free zone.
The threat of a gun does deter criminals. But keeping with this childish viewpoint that all the good guys wear white, we can't assume that all good guys with guns will be responsible with them, have great accuracy and only kill the bad guys. Conservative pundits like Bill O'Reilly, in speaking about gun control with Bob Costas just a week before the Sandy Hook shooting, he said that if people in the movie theater in Aurora had guns on them they could have taken down the shooter, and stopped the shooter before he took as many lives as he did. Again this hypothesis is not only childish, but also unrealistic.
Let's assume Dirty Harry isn't in the theater but instead, a lot of regular Americans are who hear gunshots in a dark movie theater and get nervous. When a second
shooter from the back of the theater attacks the shooter, what is there to tell
the rest of the audience that the threat is over and not think that the second
shooter is also part of the attack. Now
a third person with a gun, shoots at the second, and then a fourth fires at the
third. Now everyone in the dark theatre
is shooting at everyone else, and there is not less carnage but more. What if we arm every teacher with a gun, but
some of them take students cues that wrong way and act irresponsible with the
weapon? Also, students now don't even
have to bring a gun into school, but instead just manage to subdue one of the
teachers. Everyone armed is not
necessarily a safer scenario. Don't
misunderstand what the NRA is promoting here is not a safer environment, but
just a subtle way to drive up gun sales.
Now some people still say they want to keep guns, but just not certain types of guns. They want to ban handguns with more than 10 round clips. They want to ban assault rifles. Even the president said hunters don't need that type of gun. And it's true, deer hunters don't need an AR-15 assault rifles--but revolutionaries do. The true intention of the 2nd amendment is to have the people armed if there was ever the need to rise up against the well regulated militia for the state. It's not for hunting, it's not for home protection, it's not to keep children safe at school. We were given the right to bear arms in case we ever needed to rise up against an oppressive government. This law was written by men who just won their independence from an oppressive government, so this scenario was possible to them. Anti-gun proponents showed how on the same day when Sandy Hook occurred, in China a man stabbed school children. Yes, there were no deaths and every parent would rather have that, but the man didn't choose a knife over a gun, he didn't have that option. Why? Because he resided in Communist China. What other country did not have guns? Nazi Germany.
If we ever need to rise up against our government, we will need the best
weapons we can get our hands on, not the safest. If we are allowing guns because of the 2nd
amendment than we have to allow the types of guns in the spirit of that cause:
for the people to be able to fight back.
Fully automatic, extra-large magazines, body armor--that needs to be
available to the public, otherwise we have failed in holding to the intention
of the second amendment. So no, I am not
for the banning of these certain types of gun.
"But what about what these weapons do when in the hands of a maniac?" Well yes it's horrible, but that's because it is in the hands of a "maniac". I do not believe guns kill people, I believe people kill people, like so many gun enthusiasts believe. However, if you subscribe to this belief, than you must be in favor of more extensive background checks. Because, once you concede that it is people, and not guns that kill, then as a responsible state we must do everything in our power to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the wrong "people." This means we cannot allow 40% of gun sales to be made without background checks, like we do in this country. Gun shows where guns are sold like a flea market without any background check need to be abolished. And citizens selling guns to other citizens needs to be treated worse than a drug sale, not a legal transaction. Basically, attaining a cell phone should not require more personal information than a handgun. Also the ante we require in the checks needs to be upped. We need a database on the mentally ill. Everyone who owns a gun should at least have to pass a basic mental illness test.
Why screen for mental illness? Because the culprits behind these school
shootings, this innocent waste of public life are people who are mentally
ill. These are exactly the people who
should not have guns in their hands, and we need to take every measure to
prevent it. Employers do background
checks just to see if they should hire someone for a job like washing dishes,
we can't make this mandatory for the purchase of an object that can take away so
many lives in the matter of moments? And
a gun can do that in the wrong hands--gun enthusiasts, you cannot deny that--so
we must do everything to prevent this scenario.
This is a compromise between the pro-gun and anti-gun factions, and this country was created on compromises. We lost our way when we started to believe to never change our point of view, never give anything to the other side; and this is why now we are about to walk over a fiscal cliff, and our congress is as effective as a stringless guitar. We need to compromise on this issue, that is how you properly end a debate, both sides give and both sides wins. We need to allow any type of gun to be purchased by responsible Americans, anti-gun people. It is their 2nd Amendment right, a right to be able to rise up against the government if need be. We lose all our power if we secede this right. But, we can't allow anyone to own a gun, gun enthusiasts. Just because you are responsible does not mean everyone is, and we need to be able to determine who is and who isn't, and prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, because they are powerful weapons.
That is why they are
valuable, dangerous, and also effective.
We can't put guns in everyone's hands--that is not safer, but we need to
keep the spirit of the Second Amendment alive, but not put at risk the populace
with a gun in the hands of the wrong person.
That is why I think simply tightening down on background checks, but allowing
any type of gun to be sold to responsible people is a just compromise. I don't see why either side would be against
this compromise unless they only care about promoting their agenda and not what
is best for this country. Anti-gunners,
guns will not fall into the wrong hands, and gun enthusiasts you can own any
gun you want as long as you are responsible.
The 2nd Amendment right is not infringed, and the state can
feel a little safer. But again what do I
know. I have only written about this topic
before"
http://www.drewdamato.com/blog/2011/1/12/nra-no-rational-argument-1.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lawyers-Guns-and-Money-by-Drew-D-Amato-120806-387.html
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
