Then I felt sick to my stomach because of what I knew the media and politicians were going to do in the wake of these events. And because I knew that these events were so horrific that the only mature thing to do would be to mourn, but that I would need to be able to tactfully defend my rights. I can't help but think of the events that came in the aftermath of 9/11. The nation was brought together by a terribly tragedy, and in the wake of that tragedy, President Bush and congress passed the Patriot Act which took away many rights of privacy of American citizens and they were able to do so relatively unopposed. I don't know if that's just because Democrats were afraid of what it might mean for them politically to vote against a nation of emotional Americans who were crying out for action. Historically, rights have been taken away from American citizens more than once because of a national tragedy or emergency. The most obvious one I can think of is the Japanese prison camps that were ordered by the President after the attack at Pearl Harbor. After each shooting massacre, the argument of increased gun laws comes up again and again. For this reason I simply want to clarify to those who support increased gun control, why I think gun control laws are already too strict and are in fact part of the problem.
For the sake of simplicity I'm going to use the term liberal as a person who supports gun control and conservative as a person who supports the 2nd amendment. The general vibe I get from liberals whenever there is a debate about this issue is that conservatives are stupid people who like violence, they stop listening to them and start lecturing them with an aire of self righteousness. Are there stupid people out there that like violence? For sure! These are the people out committing gun crimes. But they are not a majority. I would like to use the following video as evidence of the typical liberal argument. I want you to notice how this "journalist" first calls his opponent stupid as an argument and then accuses HIS OPPONENT of not having any coherent arguments. Enjoy...
So that is what conservatives are up against. Angry liberals who just think we are stupid. Notice how often the liberal argument is also supported by convenient statistics which frankly, I'm sorry, don't prove anything other than that a study was done. I can find statistics to support my argument as well. But I don't want to get into all that. The point I want to make is that conservatives don't love violence and they don't want absolute wild west anarchy when it comes to guns. Gun laws are good and necessary in order for the 2nd amendment to truly work. In fact let's look at the 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."Notice the amendment BEGINS by mentioning regulation. That means laws. So here's my translation. Since its necessary to have people who are able to help protect the State, they need to be able to keep (own, store in their house) and bear (carry on their person) arms (weapons, including guns).
What kinds of regulations or laws should there be? I'm all about not allowing ordinary citizens own tanks and bazookas and flame throwers and other heavy artillery. There's no need for that kind of stuff to be able to protect one's self. What about guns? Do I need a sniper rifle? Probably not. Seems like if I'm able to take aim from a distance and calculate windshift etc, I'm probably not acting in protection of my own life in the heat of the moment. I don't have a lot of deep knowledge about every kind of gun out there, so to simplify I'll say the follow ought to be freely available to anyone who can pass a background check and obtains a permit to own and carry a weapon. Handguns and revolvers, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons. Yes assault weapons. What possible reason could one need an assault rifle for you ask? First watch the following video.
Notice that the shop owners were not shooting people. They were protecting themselves by deterring rioters. So why assault rifles you still ask? Imagine yourself in a similar situation. Hundreds of angry people are rioting and threatening to come into your house and attack you and your family. Would you rather have a short range shotgun that holds a few rounds and takes 10 seconds to reload or an assault rifle that can hold 30 rounds, shoot multiple rounds in a second and takes 2 seconds to pop in a new clip? Remember that its you against hundreds of angry people. I choose the assault rifle. Granted this is a rare scenario, but if I live in a dangerous area shouldn't I have the right to decide how I want to prepare in case I need protection?
Next I want to talk about the misconception that if everyone owned a gun there would be chaos shootings everywhere. Why do people always assume this? Well they've seen movies for one thing. In movies, people with guns run around shooting people. Let me present another possible scenario however. Let's say that our culture was completely different. We grew up learning about guns, seeing adults carry them, seeing them practice and use them safely, and being told that at a certain age of responsibility we would also have the opportunity to learn how to handle a gun and use it safely. We reach the age and we are required to take a class where we are taught that guns are for protection and they should only be used for protection. We are taught how to use them under supervision. We are educated about the serious consequences of misusing a gun. Breaking gun laws like brandishing, using them to threaten, using them unsafely say as a hammer or something, not keeping them up to code (cleaning etc), we are taught not that we should use them, but that we should know how to use them and hope we never have to, we are taught that there are places where guns are not allowed at all such as private facilities or other restricted areas, and finally we are given a permit to own and carry a gun. Does this sound familiar? I am talking about driving. I know the comparison between gun deaths and car related deaths is a bad one, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about setting up a system that teaches and regulates gun ownership in the same way that we are taught how to drive a car and have to pass a test to get a driver's license. If such a system existed, suddenly gun carrying would be a common thing. Everyone would have a gun. And there would be gun related deaths just as there are car related deaths. But in regards to criminals and crazy people busting into a school or mall and shooting everyone... well he might get one or two, but as soon as he starts shooting, I'm sorry but everyone in that place who knows how to responsibly use a gun is going to blow that sucker away and save lives.
This scenario is a little far-fetched I know. It's highly unlikely that America is suddenly going to go "yeah Brandon's got a great point, let's start teaching gun safety and handing out permits to high school kids in Driver's Ed." That would be the ultimate dream and vision of most conservative advocates of the 2nd amendment. But we also know we have to compromise. So let's look at the current situation. Schools and malls (I know there's other places I'm just simplifying again). What happened at the school in Connecticut? I'm going off an article that purports to have the latest timeline. Shots first came from outside the school through the front doors. The shooter then entered and killed the principal (who some say was trying to stop him) and a school psychologist. I'm assuming he entered the front door which would be right by the front office where parent's are required to check in to see their children, etc. From there the shooter entered the school hallways passing one classroom and entering another, killing 14. He then proceeded to another class of first graders and killed the teacher and some of her students and two teacher's aides. He then committed suicide as the police arrived. Liberals say we need to ban guns in order to prevent such a tragedy. I will grant that in some cases and maybe even in this case, that may have prevented Lanza from killing the students with a gun. I'm not willing to say that he wouldn't have come in with a different sort of weapon because I just don't know, but he doesn't seem like the type of person that would have taken the time to find an illegal weapon if guns were banned all together. But there are plenty of massacres that would have still occurred with the same weapons if those weapons were illegal, they simply would have been obtained illegally. Laws don't prevent criminals from committing crimes. I'm sorry that's just a fact. If they did then there wouldn't be any crime. But I digress. I want to present an alternate solution to banning guns that could have made a difference in Connecticut. What if a well trained armed guard were stationed at our public schools? Seems last I checked there was an issue with the unemployment rate among veterans. Hmm... large group of unemployed people who are trained in the use of firearms... In this scenario, Lanza would have been dead as soon as he fired shots through the front door. No students or teachers killed. What if school officials and teachers were trained and allowed to carry firearms on the job? The principal could have actually done something when she tried to stop Lanza other than be killed herself. The point I'm making is that there are much better solutions to solving these problems than taking away the rights of citizens. Guns are dangerous, but when used properly, they can save lives. We should be advocating for more conscientious and responsible ownership of guns and better protection for our children.
That's all I want to say. I think I want to finish by adding a few rambling arguments. Guns are not the problem, bad people who commit violence are the problem. The only way you are going to eliminate gun violence is literally to take every gun in the world and melt them and kill all the people who know how to make guns and brainwash the rest of the world into forgetting that guns ever existed. And even then, its likely that someone will eventually come up with the idea for guns again, and meanwhile crazy people are going to be committing mass murders in malls and schools with bows and arrows and swords. And unless you ban those too, hopefully there will at least be a few master swordsmen in those public areas who can parry the attacks and stop the crazy people. Otherwise we are simply going to be having the same argument about sword control and people in California aren't going to be allowed to carry pocket knives.
No comments:
Post a Comment