Gun Control – Should We, Or Should We Not?
The issue of gun control has come up recently as an important decision opportunity for our country. Many people are asking whether guns really are the helpful tool that many of us have been saying they are, or if they are the killing machines they have recently been publicized as. Gun Control: The Great Cop-out by Jared Machaud and Gun Control and the Constitution by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman effectively display the anti-gun control side of this discussion; whereas The Second Amendment is all for Gun Control by Adam Winkler and Making Gun Control Happen by Patrick Radden Keefe display the pro-gun control side. In my views, guns are a helper in a time of crisis when help is too far away, or unwilling to come. Rather than put more restrictions on guns and gun owners, we should maintain the ability to protect ourselves and our fellow Americans through the use of firearms.
As we take a look at the way gun control advocates are planning on enforcing gun control, you may start to even question why we would even contemplate using such tedious means. The idea that limiting the size of a magazine or regulating the type of gun you can purchase or even doing something as simple as a background check will stop murders like the Connecticut shooting from happening is ridiculous. In Making Gun Control Happen the author, Patrick Radden Keefe, writes as an advocate to gun control. He indicates that one blatantly obvious change would be to “mandate a criminal background check for all gun purchases” as it would obviously stop criminals from getting their hands on a weapon (Keefe). It takes brains to live the life of a criminal; many of them most likely have weaseled their way out of the database and would therefore be able to buy a gun anyway. The idea of using a background check as the main means to sort out the good people from the bad people is a magnificent example of the many things wrong with gun control. In the article, Gun Control and the Constitution by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman, the constitutionality of the many regulations that would be inflicted—should gun control be passed—are examined thoroughly. Although requiring background checks on all gun purchases seems like a good idea, the only individuals it would affect are the law-abiding citizens. Criminals tend to ignore laws; hence they are called criminals, and inflicting “excessive waiting periods, registration fees and the like” on law-abiding citizens who are already following the law would only tell you that everyone buying a gun is an upstanding individual (Rivkin & Grossman). In essence, law-abiding citizens will be jumping through hoops in order to get a gun to protect themselves with and the criminals will continue to get their guns through illegal venues as they always have. Background checks would only cause tedious paperwork for those individuals who do not have their mind set on murdering children.
However, publicly displaying the way we feel about these criminals through the social media and by speaking out may have an influence that we may not be aware of. The public opinion means more than we know to criminals; they are always looking for attention, if they can grab you and cause you to be infuriated by their actions then they have achieved their ultimate goal. In the article, Gun Control: The Great Cop-Out, Jared Machaud writes about an off-duty deputy sheriff in San Antonio that was faced with a similar situation to the Sandy Hook tragedy, however, they shot the perpetrator dead before dozens of innocent civilians could be murdered. Had the newspapers publicized this incident, as it happened two days after the Sandy Hook tragedy, “how much more difficult would it be for the next human scum to…murder innocent” civilians with the knowledge of how he would be met by normal, gun-carrying, citizens (Machaud)? A criminal contemplating the idea of shooting down dozens of civilians might then take a step back and wonder if they really should risk their life in an attempt to extinguish the life of others. The ability to carry a firearm is not only a protector for you, but also a protector for those who are not carrying firearms around you. In the article, The Second Amendment is all For Gun Control, Adam Winkler writes to convince the readers that gun control has always been a part of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms, the right we have as American citizens to carry a firearm as protection. Though guns have been used incorrectly in past and recent events, these instances cannot stop us from “securing an individual right to have guns for personal protection” as the 2nd Amendment so clearly states that we are allowed (Winkler). The right given to us by the constitution clearly mentions the right we have to owning a firearm for our protection. There are instances where owning a gun may dissolve a conflict before the police or anyone who could even remotely help would be able to arrive. Showing those criminals how they are viewed by pointing a gun back at them causes them to quaver in their choice to wreak havoc.
As gun control is such a controversial topic that leads to arguments of whether it should be legalized or not, the idea that we would not be able to defend ourselves, should the need arise, is a horrific nightmare and almost a terrible reality. Legalizing gun control will only further the pain caused to our county through the many instances that have occurred in the past and recently. In response to this, we should keep the guns legal and keep our future safe.
GUN CONTROL: THE GREAT COP-OUT – http://www.ibtimes.com/gun-control-great-cop-out-984100
GUN CONTROL AND THE CONSTITUTION – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323951904578290460073953432.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
MAKING GUN CONTROL HAPPEN – http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/making-gun-control-happen.html
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ALL FOR GUN CONTROL – http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/17/the-second-amendment-is-all-for-gun-control.html
Fare the well!