Gun Control?

For such a hot and highly debated subject such as gun laws, there of course is huge arguments that present their opinions of each side and each side is well equipped with rational and well thought out arguments that support their claims. The group of people who are against the claim that guns should be controlled are the ones who want the basic right to self-defense in an instance of attack, which in the video The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms Has Outlived its Usefulness: A Debate, the men fighting against the motion said that the most useful tool to protect oneself is that of a gun. The men said that just like the right to speak, not just with your voice, one can use the internet as a tool to spread their message on a blog across the world, a gun is used as a tool for protection. That is the most innocent argument, though still persuasive for their side. One very potent argument that they made was that if one person has a gun and they are ruthless and violent, what are you to do? They suggested that the criminals won’t give up their weapons so we shouldn’t as well; we need to defend against tyranny, whether it be from outside our society, or whether it is our own government. The men in this video suggested that in the right hands, weapons can do more good than it has been used for bad. These men also said that to take away the rights of men to own guns would be suppressing the rights and discourage diversity within society while disrespecting the people of this land. In the article Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives, when discussing the fact that some people say that weapons are evil, the author made a strong argument that it is in fact the person, their heart that is evil and murderous, and not that of a mere tool, such as the gun. He said that guns could not be responsible for already violent people. This article suggests that we should promote gun ownership until a social solution can be found, for the author said that violence with guns is due to social issues. While trying to take away the guns from ill-intentioned people, the author suggested that it would also be taking them away from honest collectors of weapons. This author suggests that statistics about accidents occurring in the home with concealed weapons or even if people had them in the streets aren’t as high as people would think, that while accidents have occurred, people aren’t mad enough to shoot someone because of road rage or something of the like. This article promotes self-defense with the use of guns and also making sure the military has good weapons to defend us.

The strong arguments for the motion that there should be strict gun laws are as follows: First and foremost, in the video The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms Has Outlived its Usefulness: A Debate, Bob Rozenkranz said that the world today is immensely different than it was when the 2nd Amendment was put in place, that the right for protecting oneself with laws to own guns isn’t as necessary as it was back then and thus is no longer useful, especially now that we have a well-trained police force that is required to protect the people. The side of limiting gun access wants to be clear that they are not trying to ban guns entirely, but have stricter laws as to ensure the protection of all. Their major side was that gun ownership has outlived the usefulness it once held and that the 2nd Amendment was not clear enough about what it meant. The men in the video said that the law should have been, the right to self-defense and not the right to own guns. They said that the opposing side even agrees that everyone has the right to self-defense, yet is hunting with guns considered self-defense? What did the founders mean when they said right to bear arms? The men made it clear that the right to bear arms was not the same as self-defense because say a burglar robs a bank with a gun, or without a gun, does this person have the right to self-defense if someone tries to stop him by harming him? The men in this video mentioned a great man who wanted to fight for his rights but with peace and not with the act of aggression, for he knew what it would do. They were of course referring to Martin Luther King Jr. He knew that a war would break out and that would solve nothing. The men said that during the civil rights movement, if the law is the right to bear arms, and thus self-defense, would it be wrong for the Ku Klux Klan to fight for their right to keep a segregated community, especially considering that the civil rights movement was a peaceful movement that desired no ill will to people; they just wanted their rights to be heard too. It should say something that one of the most peaceful men of our time, that though wanted to fight for his rights, but not to be fought for with bloodshed, got killed by an assassin with a gun. The people who believe that the 2nd Amendment has outlived its time do not believe that people don’t have the right to own guns, however they do believe that the laws concerning them should be strict as to not have horrible outcomes, such as accidental injury and death and senseless brutality. In the article Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives, the author wants to prevent household innocents, suicides and school shootings by keeping guns out of the wrong hands. The author believes that guns are too easily obtained, especially for criminals who wish to do harm. The author said that there should be better background checks and limitations so that not just anybody can obtain guns, especially illegally. This article suggests that weapons are dangerous and that this issue should be handled responsibly, for when a child plays with matches, all there has to be is one spark.

The flaws I found with the side that wants to preserve the right to carry arms is as follows: When the men said that because criminals will always have weapons, we should as well, that makes sense, the playing field should be equal so that we do not get wiped out. The issue with that mentality is that just because saying something should be legal because people will do it anyway and at least making it legal will make it safer is like saying breaking the law should be legal because people are already doing it, so at least there won’t be any consequences. When this side also stated that keeping the rights to bear arms was a way of not suppressing the right of others and not suppressing their rights and respecting everyone, that way of thinking is flawed because respecting everyone’s rights is impossible. You can’t give one group the right to have something and call it fair if the other group says that its infringing of their rights. Someone will always be offended and always have their rights infringed upon, therefore, it is not possible to respect everyone’s rights. The rights of people are so broad that anything can fit in and you will end up suppressing someone. Who’s to say that we can’t have a gun free society? A good argument they made was about the weapon not being evil but that of the hearts of men. The issue with that statement is in the words. If there are people out there evil enough to misuse weapons, why should weapons exist? Apparently, we humans are not mature enough for such power if the issues of guns is a societal issue. George Takei said that “Our democracy is a people’s democracy, and it can be as great as people can be, but it is also as fallible as people are.” (“George Takei Quote.”) This side also said that general people are not mad enough to just go shooting people around because of road rage or something of the like, except that we are not perfect. Dale Carnegie said that “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudice, and motivated by pride and vanity.” (“A quote from How to Win Friends and Influence People”) Why should we entrust ourselves with such power as killing someone with the simple tug of a finger? I did agree with letting the military keep their weapons, because they are our right to protection. They need the military weapons to protect us because they are well-trained and we civilians do not need military grade weapons.

I found the side of limiting the availability of guns to be most persuasive. I don’t agree with taking all weapons away, sides that wouldn’t work, but I do believe it important to have strict policies about owning such tools. Mr. Spock once said that “where there is no emotion, there is no motive for violence.” (“Quotes.”) Though idealistic, this will and hopefully never be us. We will always have our emotions to guide us, for the better or worse. For all the good this world has to offer, there is also evil. There are people who are greedy and selfish and the American dream is to get ahead however, it is not possible for everyone because for one to succeed, one must fail. This is only because instead of trying to work together to live in peace and just survive, people can be greedy and want more for themselves then is ever needed. This is why I agree that the Constitutional right to bears arms has outlived its usefulness and gun laws should be stricter as to promote a time of nonviolence.

A cool solution would be to have tazers like on Star Trek so that we could just stun people to protect oneself but not actually kill.

Works Cited

 “A quote from How to Win Friends and Influence People” Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar.


“George Takei Quote.” A-Z Quotes. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.

“Quotes.” IMDb., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.


One thought on “Gun Control?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s