I have pretty strong opinions about gun control so I needed to write this post for myself as much as for anyone else. I believe that I can only stick to my beliefs if I have looked at both sides and am informed about the views of the other side as well. I needed to do some research and challenge my thoughts on the issue so that I was sure that I could be confident in what I write and say to other people. This is such a volatile topic (especially in the wake of the last horrific shooting) and I really want to do it justice by being as objective and sensitive as possible. As a warning, I do not agree that appealing to emotions is a good way to create or enforce policy. So I want to present facts and logical arguments rather than emotional ones.
The first thing I want to do is define some terms-which I realize sounds like a college textbook, but it's important. If we don't have a common ground to start from, then we can never agree on anything and this whole discussion will be for nothing.
Assault Weapon- So this was very confusing. Technically, the definition of an assault weapon is anything you can assault someone with. But, since the "Assault Weapon Ban", which ended in 2004, it means there are certain types of semi-automatic guns that are "Assault Weapons" as defined by the government. The guns that qualified had to have several different parts added to it-none of which changed the rifle's functions. This basically means the scary looking guns are "Assault Weapons". Here's a YouTube video I found to explain it more if you want to look into it. Watch from about :33 to about 1:25 of the video.
Assault Rifle-As the video explained, an Assault Rifle is a gun that can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
Semi-Automatic: The gun can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger (pop-pop-pop). Most guns today are semi-automatic.
Automatic: The gun can fire continually until you are out of bullets (poppoppoppop). These are the type of guns you think about when you think Rambo (Machine Guns). Automatic weapons have been banned unless given a special permit from the government since 1934. I hear a lot of people getting these terms mixed up so I hope this helps.
AR-15- Stands for Armalite Rifle. It is a semi-automatic gun but the issue is more of what the weapon can do despite being semi-automatic. According to NBC News: "AR-15s inflict much more damage to human tissue than the typical handgun, which is used in most shootings. That's largely because of the speed at which projectiles leave the weapons; they are much faster out of the muzzle of an AR-15, or similar rifle, and deliver a more devastating blow to bones and organs. Those projectiles are also more likely to break apart as they pass through the body, inflicting more damage. 'The higher muzzle-velocity projectiles, if they strike an organ, you’re more likely to have severe injury and bleeding and dying than with lower muzzle-velocity munitions,' said Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the owner of several guns, including an AR-15."
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
State gun laws vary pretty widely, but if you want to look up your own you can go here NRA-ILA and look up your own states laws. This link takes you to Missouri's but you can click on a state and it will show you your laws.
Here is a link to a copy of Federal Firearms Laws as well: Justice Department It is important to note (in case you don't read it) that it is already illegal for a person who has a domestic assault history to have a gun. I've just heard a lot of people saying that we need a law for that and there already is. The issue with most of these federal laws are enforcement unfortunately.
Alright so I've done a lot of research on this and I know most people fall into one of three camps; 1) No gun control is going to work, 2) Some gun control is needed, and 3) The media. The media has done another bang up job with respect to the polls and facts that they promote. I also believe that people are much more in the middle than is being reported. One thing to remember in politics, is that the minute you decide your side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong it's easy to minimize the person and treat them as less than you. Things get ugly when we forget we're all human and that we all see the world a little differently.
Camp No. 1- No Gun Control
What this camp really believes (some may not even be able to articulate it though), is that Second Amendment rights must be protected because if that right falls, it may simply be a matter of time before others go with it. This is not really about the gun (for most). Now some of you are rolling their eyes and telling me I'm ridiculous-but this is real! Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people,there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny". This is about big versus small government when it boils down to it. Another famous founder, Thomas Paine said "arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property". The most common argument I've heard against this is that the founders couldn't possibly have foreseen the type of violence and weapons that we see in our day. I obviously don't know the answer to that question completely, but I do know that there was a ton of violence in their day as well. Let's just look at one battle of the civil war- in the Battle of Gettysburg there were 51,112 estimated casualties civilwar.org. In 2 days. I know that this was war time- and I know that's different a little bit, but it illustrates how familiar they were with guns and violence. It was also extremely important (part of the Constitution) that they be armed and ready to rise up as a militia whenever necessary. The important word here is Militia. This referred to every able bodied man in the country. Americans were expected to be well trained and ready to rise up at a moments notice to protect their families and countries.
Another argument made by this camp is that Gun Control is, to quote Thomas Jefferson again, an example of "false utility". It won't stop crime. Even if we were to ban guns today, there are between 270 million and 310 million guns in the US Pew Research. That is a staggering number which leads me to believe that there is no way to actually even consider this as an option. Many people offer Australia as an example of a way to do it, however, there is no constitutional issue in Australia and the number of guns was much smaller than in America. I think we would be hard pressed to convince gun owners to turn in their guns for money, let alone be able to actually hold anyone accountable.
Also, the idea that criminals don't follow laws actually holds up. In 2016, a study at the University of Pittsburgh found that in 8 out of 10 crimes the perpetrator committed the crime with an illegal weapon. Washington Post It would be awesome if we could ban guns to everyone and have crime and murder stop happening, but unfortunately, I'm not convinced that's the way it works.
Finally, another historical figure makes a persuasive case against gun control when he said "The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing'. Anyone wanna guess who said it???
Camp No. 2- More Gun Control, Please! I came across a poll today that showed what I has assumed about this camp. Most Americans fall into this area. According to a Morning Consult/Politco poll, 64% of Americans "strongly support" or "somewhat support" "stricter gun control laws in the United States." Daily Wire This was not a surprise to me, with all the tragedy we have seen in past years it is completely understandable that people think this is the answer. I reached out to a lot of my friends to try and get a pulse on how people feel about gun control, and it was overwhelmingly that something needs to change. Solutions range from outlawing certain things like Bump Stocks (used in the Las Vegas massacre), all the way increasing the age limit to buy guns and repealing the second amendment. I don't see why people need bump stocks on their guns-it essentially turns a semi-automatic gun to automatic. I think this idea will probably get some movement (Trump has already signaled for an inquiry into it). I don't agree with age limit increase because it seems contradictory that if someone is in the Army and very well trained to handle a gun yet isn't old enough to own a gun privately? Repealing the second amendment is a stretch, I would be interested to see how it would play out but not sure there is a real movement behind it. Another suggestion I've heard is to pass more "red flag laws" which allow guns to be seized from a person if there is proof that they are a danger to themselves or someone else. Currently 5 states have this on their books, and there are more following suit. Washington Post This seems like a reasonable law to me so long as the burden of proof is high and that their gun rights are reinstated if/when the situation is cleared up.
3) The media always has an agenda these days. If you don't think they do, then you either completely agree with the agenda (which is fine), or you haven't watched enough new stations. Fox News spouts one side, and CNN and NBC and CBS spout another (obviously this is not an exhaustive list). It's all agenda either way you look. Unfortunately, we, the commoners who aren't Hollywood or Media gurus, are the pawns in their ratings game. This last school shooting in Parkland is an egregious example of media using victims and their emotions to up their ratings and fill their agenda. If you don't believe me, you need to watch the White House listening session with President Trump (where he actually listened and didn't argue with anyone), and then watch the CNN town hall where victims and their families (only a WEEK after a horrible tragedy), were able to grill NRA Spokeswoman Dana Loesch and Senator Marco Rubio without any interference by a moderator. I completely understand the emotions of the victims and their families, but I feel like it was extremely inappropriate to use them as pawns in their gun control push. This is not about the Police so I will not go into the issues with the Sheriff of Broward County, but boy do I have thoughts! Look, they went through a terrible, horrible, disgusting tragedy that no one should have to go through. The person who did it should have been arrested before it happened, there is a 911 call to prove it- these poor victims were put into a situation where their emotions were capitalized on by CNN and allowed to completely destroy people that weren't even involved in the crime. Just as an example, at one point, as Dana Loesch is trying to answer the question, someone in the audience is yelling "murderer" at her. Dana Loesch was not responsible for these horrific murders. The actual murderer was responsible. That's it. Blaming the NRA will not bring those kids back. I know it makes people feel better to blame someone, but it won't change the situation.
Is the NRA bound to politicians? Let's look! According to Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA spent $5,122,000 on lobbying efforts in 2017. According to Fortune.com, Google spent "over 18 million dollars on lobbying efforts", and Amazon spent $12.8 million. Pro gun control groups (in total) spent $1,942,415 on lobbying efforts in 2017 Center for Responsive Politics. So when you look at just those numbers, it really isn't a large piece of the pie. However, it is important to note that the NRA also spends much more in other areas. The NY Times had an article that explains it more clearly,but basically, the NRA spends much more money on Ads and voter guides which tells their members which candidates are Pro 2nd Amendment. So, I wouldn't say that individual members of Congress are bought by the NRA with money, however, they are in danger of losing an election if the NRA gives them a low grade and their 5 million members don't vote for them. Republican candidates know that if they don't support the NRA and the 5 million Americans plus all the others who are pro-gun rights but not members, they will probably not win an election. So yes, that is a motivating factor. It's the same however on the Democratic side for Planned Parenthood. They risk losing elections by alienating voters if they are not pro-choice. Although Planned Parenthood doesn't have the same money as the NRA so it's not exactly the same. Candidates are supposed to be for certain issues, this is why they are elected, and why people vote for or against them. I think if you could show me a candidate who has changed their stance on something after receiving a large contribution from a lobbying group and then there could be an argument for them being "bought". I just haven't seen that in my research. Maybe you know of one, if so, let us know!
This is such a complex issue. You can't look at either side and say definitively that it is right or wrong. Your personal view of the issue is formed by so many factors; do you live in an urban or rural area, did you grow up around guns or not, are you a hunter? Another thing to think about in the wake of the school shootings in particular is, what about looking into other factors in society? I think there is a good case to be made that while it is important to keep guns out of the hands of minors, or those with intent to harm others, the root of the problem is much deeper than guns. Mental health is on the decline in America, pornography, violent media, and low self-esteem are major issues. You can say you agree to disagree with me about it, but think about it. We owe it to all the people who have lost their lives to gun violence to do our due diligence and find the best answers to this problem.
The first thing I want to do is define some terms-which I realize sounds like a college textbook, but it's important. If we don't have a common ground to start from, then we can never agree on anything and this whole discussion will be for nothing.
Assault Weapon- So this was very confusing. Technically, the definition of an assault weapon is anything you can assault someone with. But, since the "Assault Weapon Ban", which ended in 2004, it means there are certain types of semi-automatic guns that are "Assault Weapons" as defined by the government. The guns that qualified had to have several different parts added to it-none of which changed the rifle's functions. This basically means the scary looking guns are "Assault Weapons". Here's a YouTube video I found to explain it more if you want to look into it. Watch from about :33 to about 1:25 of the video.
Assault Rifle-As the video explained, an Assault Rifle is a gun that can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
Semi-Automatic: The gun can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger (pop-pop-pop). Most guns today are semi-automatic.
Automatic: The gun can fire continually until you are out of bullets (poppoppoppop). These are the type of guns you think about when you think Rambo (Machine Guns). Automatic weapons have been banned unless given a special permit from the government since 1934. I hear a lot of people getting these terms mixed up so I hope this helps.
AR-15- Stands for Armalite Rifle. It is a semi-automatic gun but the issue is more of what the weapon can do despite being semi-automatic. According to NBC News: "AR-15s inflict much more damage to human tissue than the typical handgun, which is used in most shootings. That's largely because of the speed at which projectiles leave the weapons; they are much faster out of the muzzle of an AR-15, or similar rifle, and deliver a more devastating blow to bones and organs. Those projectiles are also more likely to break apart as they pass through the body, inflicting more damage. 'The higher muzzle-velocity projectiles, if they strike an organ, you’re more likely to have severe injury and bleeding and dying than with lower muzzle-velocity munitions,' said Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the owner of several guns, including an AR-15."
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
State gun laws vary pretty widely, but if you want to look up your own you can go here NRA-ILA and look up your own states laws. This link takes you to Missouri's but you can click on a state and it will show you your laws.
Here is a link to a copy of Federal Firearms Laws as well: Justice Department It is important to note (in case you don't read it) that it is already illegal for a person who has a domestic assault history to have a gun. I've just heard a lot of people saying that we need a law for that and there already is. The issue with most of these federal laws are enforcement unfortunately.
Alright so I've done a lot of research on this and I know most people fall into one of three camps; 1) No gun control is going to work, 2) Some gun control is needed, and 3) The media. The media has done another bang up job with respect to the polls and facts that they promote. I also believe that people are much more in the middle than is being reported. One thing to remember in politics, is that the minute you decide your side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong it's easy to minimize the person and treat them as less than you. Things get ugly when we forget we're all human and that we all see the world a little differently.
Camp No. 1- No Gun Control
What this camp really believes (some may not even be able to articulate it though), is that Second Amendment rights must be protected because if that right falls, it may simply be a matter of time before others go with it. This is not really about the gun (for most). Now some of you are rolling their eyes and telling me I'm ridiculous-but this is real! Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people,there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny". This is about big versus small government when it boils down to it. Another famous founder, Thomas Paine said "arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property". The most common argument I've heard against this is that the founders couldn't possibly have foreseen the type of violence and weapons that we see in our day. I obviously don't know the answer to that question completely, but I do know that there was a ton of violence in their day as well. Let's just look at one battle of the civil war- in the Battle of Gettysburg there were 51,112 estimated casualties civilwar.org. In 2 days. I know that this was war time- and I know that's different a little bit, but it illustrates how familiar they were with guns and violence. It was also extremely important (part of the Constitution) that they be armed and ready to rise up as a militia whenever necessary. The important word here is Militia. This referred to every able bodied man in the country. Americans were expected to be well trained and ready to rise up at a moments notice to protect their families and countries.
Another argument made by this camp is that Gun Control is, to quote Thomas Jefferson again, an example of "false utility". It won't stop crime. Even if we were to ban guns today, there are between 270 million and 310 million guns in the US Pew Research. That is a staggering number which leads me to believe that there is no way to actually even consider this as an option. Many people offer Australia as an example of a way to do it, however, there is no constitutional issue in Australia and the number of guns was much smaller than in America. I think we would be hard pressed to convince gun owners to turn in their guns for money, let alone be able to actually hold anyone accountable.
Also, the idea that criminals don't follow laws actually holds up. In 2016, a study at the University of Pittsburgh found that in 8 out of 10 crimes the perpetrator committed the crime with an illegal weapon. Washington Post It would be awesome if we could ban guns to everyone and have crime and murder stop happening, but unfortunately, I'm not convinced that's the way it works.
Finally, another historical figure makes a persuasive case against gun control when he said "The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing'. Anyone wanna guess who said it???
Camp No. 2- More Gun Control, Please! I came across a poll today that showed what I has assumed about this camp. Most Americans fall into this area. According to a Morning Consult/Politco poll, 64% of Americans "strongly support" or "somewhat support" "stricter gun control laws in the United States." Daily Wire This was not a surprise to me, with all the tragedy we have seen in past years it is completely understandable that people think this is the answer. I reached out to a lot of my friends to try and get a pulse on how people feel about gun control, and it was overwhelmingly that something needs to change. Solutions range from outlawing certain things like Bump Stocks (used in the Las Vegas massacre), all the way increasing the age limit to buy guns and repealing the second amendment. I don't see why people need bump stocks on their guns-it essentially turns a semi-automatic gun to automatic. I think this idea will probably get some movement (Trump has already signaled for an inquiry into it). I don't agree with age limit increase because it seems contradictory that if someone is in the Army and very well trained to handle a gun yet isn't old enough to own a gun privately? Repealing the second amendment is a stretch, I would be interested to see how it would play out but not sure there is a real movement behind it. Another suggestion I've heard is to pass more "red flag laws" which allow guns to be seized from a person if there is proof that they are a danger to themselves or someone else. Currently 5 states have this on their books, and there are more following suit. Washington Post This seems like a reasonable law to me so long as the burden of proof is high and that their gun rights are reinstated if/when the situation is cleared up.
3) The media always has an agenda these days. If you don't think they do, then you either completely agree with the agenda (which is fine), or you haven't watched enough new stations. Fox News spouts one side, and CNN and NBC and CBS spout another (obviously this is not an exhaustive list). It's all agenda either way you look. Unfortunately, we, the commoners who aren't Hollywood or Media gurus, are the pawns in their ratings game. This last school shooting in Parkland is an egregious example of media using victims and their emotions to up their ratings and fill their agenda. If you don't believe me, you need to watch the White House listening session with President Trump (where he actually listened and didn't argue with anyone), and then watch the CNN town hall where victims and their families (only a WEEK after a horrible tragedy), were able to grill NRA Spokeswoman Dana Loesch and Senator Marco Rubio without any interference by a moderator. I completely understand the emotions of the victims and their families, but I feel like it was extremely inappropriate to use them as pawns in their gun control push. This is not about the Police so I will not go into the issues with the Sheriff of Broward County, but boy do I have thoughts! Look, they went through a terrible, horrible, disgusting tragedy that no one should have to go through. The person who did it should have been arrested before it happened, there is a 911 call to prove it- these poor victims were put into a situation where their emotions were capitalized on by CNN and allowed to completely destroy people that weren't even involved in the crime. Just as an example, at one point, as Dana Loesch is trying to answer the question, someone in the audience is yelling "murderer" at her. Dana Loesch was not responsible for these horrific murders. The actual murderer was responsible. That's it. Blaming the NRA will not bring those kids back. I know it makes people feel better to blame someone, but it won't change the situation.
Is the NRA bound to politicians? Let's look! According to Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA spent $5,122,000 on lobbying efforts in 2017. According to Fortune.com, Google spent "over 18 million dollars on lobbying efforts", and Amazon spent $12.8 million. Pro gun control groups (in total) spent $1,942,415 on lobbying efforts in 2017 Center for Responsive Politics. So when you look at just those numbers, it really isn't a large piece of the pie. However, it is important to note that the NRA also spends much more in other areas. The NY Times had an article that explains it more clearly,but basically, the NRA spends much more money on Ads and voter guides which tells their members which candidates are Pro 2nd Amendment. So, I wouldn't say that individual members of Congress are bought by the NRA with money, however, they are in danger of losing an election if the NRA gives them a low grade and their 5 million members don't vote for them. Republican candidates know that if they don't support the NRA and the 5 million Americans plus all the others who are pro-gun rights but not members, they will probably not win an election. So yes, that is a motivating factor. It's the same however on the Democratic side for Planned Parenthood. They risk losing elections by alienating voters if they are not pro-choice. Although Planned Parenthood doesn't have the same money as the NRA so it's not exactly the same. Candidates are supposed to be for certain issues, this is why they are elected, and why people vote for or against them. I think if you could show me a candidate who has changed their stance on something after receiving a large contribution from a lobbying group and then there could be an argument for them being "bought". I just haven't seen that in my research. Maybe you know of one, if so, let us know!
This is such a complex issue. You can't look at either side and say definitively that it is right or wrong. Your personal view of the issue is formed by so many factors; do you live in an urban or rural area, did you grow up around guns or not, are you a hunter? Another thing to think about in the wake of the school shootings in particular is, what about looking into other factors in society? I think there is a good case to be made that while it is important to keep guns out of the hands of minors, or those with intent to harm others, the root of the problem is much deeper than guns. Mental health is on the decline in America, pornography, violent media, and low self-esteem are major issues. You can say you agree to disagree with me about it, but think about it. We owe it to all the people who have lost their lives to gun violence to do our due diligence and find the best answers to this problem.
Comments
Post a Comment