Period 10: Gun Rights and Gun Control

Gun control and gun rights is a very heated debate due to each side feeling very strongly and refusing to back down. Advocates of gun rights often cite the Second Amendment to support their argument, the Washington Post summarizes this amendment as “'a well-regulated Militia' a necessity for a free state and therefore guarantees 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.'” The advocates have the constitution to back up their opinion but they choose to ignore the fact that America today is very different from America in 1787. When the constitution was written citizens used their guns to protect the country and to hunt for food, local militias where men owned and used their own firearms were their equivalent to today's military, making private gun ownership a necessity back then. In today's America however guns are mainly used for recreational purposes, excluding the military, like hunting or target practice, some people even collect guns but never use them, this makes it easy for people with sinister intentions to own a gun without any suspicion. Gun control advocates on the other hand argue that restricting and regulating gun ownership will lessen the number of homicides and mass shootings in America as suggested in the Forbes article. However if a person is intent on using a gun for murder there is no concrete way to stop them, Fox News states, "you can have all the gun control laws you want and you still won’t be able to stop horrors like this from happening." That is the sad truth and although making guns less readily available and restricting them sounds like a good plan, the killers will find other ways to acquire guns or will kill in a different manner. Although both sides on this issue believe that they hold the answer, no answer will ever be "correct" and the hated debate will continue.

duffy I agree with your point that you can not predict disaster and that people can surprise you. In many cases of crime, being small scale or large scale, the perpetrator appeared to be a normal citizen but had abnormal thoughts that they then acted upon. Restricting guns would not deter most criminals from committing a crime, like you said, there are other ways and places to get a weapon like the Black Market that they would turn to.

When tragedy strikes, we are quick to use it as an example for our personal agendas. As such, with the Las Vegas shooting the question of gun control legislation is back on the table. Every time an event of this scale happens we are quick to judge the means of destruction rather than the person behind it. In this case the means of destruction are firearms. Which begs the question, do we limit certain firearms and or make it harder to obtain such firearms? Common consensus would result that it is too easy to obtain firearms legally in America, as the narrative is skewed to say that they just get handed out to citizens. However, depending on the state it can be quite difficult to obtain a firearm, which is discouraging for law abiding citizens who want to defend themselves. In the state of PA, in order to obtain a CCW (license that allows for citizens to carry a concealed weapon on themselves and or in a vehicle) the PA State Police website says "An individual who is 21 years of age or older may apply for a license to carry firearms by submitting a completed Application for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms to the sheriff of the county in which they reside or if a resident of a city of the first class, with the chief of police of that city along with the required fee. The sheriff has 45 days to conduct an investigation to determine an individual's eligibility to be issued a license. Included in the investigation is a background check conducted on the individual through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) to determine if the records indicate the individual is prohibited by law. In accordance with 18 PA C.S. §6109, a sheriff may deny an individual the right to a License to Carry Firearms if there is reason to believe that the character and reputation of the individual are such that they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety. The license is valid for a period of five (5) years unless sooner revoked. NOTE: A license to carry firearms is NOT a license to purchase. Individuals who purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer are required to have a background check conducted regardless of whether they have a license to carry firearms or not." As shown, it is a lengthy process and anyone who wants to obtain a firearm for illicit purposes will skip this process and obtain one else wise. They are already planning to break the law what does one more law mean to them? Now the rhetoric shifts when talking about semi and or fully automatic "assault" weapons, with emphasis on the need to restrict such weapons. However isn't the use of an object to assault someone, by proxy make it an assault weapon? You could also ask, why does someone need such a weapon? Maybe to defend against someone else who intends to assault them with the same such weapon. Many countries in Europe have already banned "assault" weapons, yet in Europe there has been over 142 failed, foiled, or completed violent attacks in 2017 (www.Europol.europa.eu) and Fox News states "But one sad fact that everyone calling for gun control needs to consider is that, as Europe has shown, you can have all the gun control laws you want and you still won’t be able to stop horrors like this from happening" suggesting that those with the intent to harm will harm through either legal or illegal means. I liked the way Ayslyn's summarized this in her statement "Non-law abiding citizens are just that; citizens who do not follow the law".

pflugh There are already tons of restrictions on firearms. You cannot possess a firearm with a prior felony. Buying a firearm for someone who cannot is a class three felony. All firearms have to have a serial number and removing the serial number is a felony. Any instance of institutionalization whether it is court ordered or self admittance automatically excludes you from possessing a firearm. In order to distribute firearms you must have a license. Unlawfully carrying a firearm depending on the situation is either a class three felony or a misdemeanor. You cannot brandish a firearm in public without reproduction. That's just to name a few. Most restrictions vary from state to state and some get very specific, taking into account firearm length and other factors.

@weber I completely agree with the idea of doing a mental health evaluation before being able to purchase a gun. There’s nothing else we can do to determine whether someone is safe to have a gun or not. Even people can still manage to find their way to get through an evaluation. The governments hands are kinda tied with what they should do next.

For as long as mass shootings have been around, so has the question regarding the necessity of Gun Control. Just like anything else, it is such a heated debate because so many people bear weighted opinions on the matter. The majority of which fear the violation of their near-and-dear Second Amendment right. There is nothing wrong with protecting your liberties, but when do you stop to ask yourself if it is still worth it? I’m not saying Gun control should entail the confiscation of millions of firearms, but we have to consider what is being presented to us. It’s clear guns don't kill people - people kill people, but where do we draw the line? In December 14th of 2012, twenty children and six adults were involved in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. The shooter there had also taken his own life in the aftermath. A journalist by the name of Dan Hodges stated, “In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US Gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.” Unfortunately, we do not live in a utopian society. We are not perfect and are subjected to mistakes, however doing nothing to prevent horrendous genocides pushes us over the line to becoming dystopian and inhumane. Time after time, countless individuals have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and incapable of possessing weapons of any sort. While the few shouldn't speak for the many, no one can help but feel urgency rising. Amidst the chaos, we maintain the struggle to find an effective solution. Americans and those alike continue to die at the fault of unstable people. While providing regulations is a start, complete and utter gun control is unrealistic. U.S.A. Today put it simply, “The folks driving this train have decided that this is the way we live - that to be free means to accept the dozens of American deaths in mass shootings.” Even if you believe doing something about the issue will fail, remember that not doing anything about it will do you just as much good. The truth is, gun violence will never go away, but we must do our best as a country to decrease the copious amounts of undeserving deaths.

What is more important to you, keeping an amendment written when mass shootings were unheard of or supporting the notion to protect ones you love and innocent people from another deadly shooting that could happen anywhere at anytime?