With the recent gun-related violence in places like Dallas
and Orlando, the debate over the appropriate level of government-mandated gun
control has once again flared across media outlets and political rhetoric. With
the inherent difficulty in determining the exact causes that lead to such
serious events, consensus on which methods and policies actually affect their
occurrences is split across the nation.
There
are two main viewpoints on the issue. One is to reduce the power of gun control
laws which would permit more people to purchase weapons, which would increase
the chance of the perpetrator getting stopped by someone else on the scene. The
other is to strengthen such laws which would delay or deny attempted purchases
based on things such as mental health and criminal background checks, hopefully
reducing the chances of potential criminals to obtain weapons in the first
place.
Personally I lean towards increased gun control. I think the stinger here is a misunderstanding of what that means, because the usual response is something along the lines of "Obama is trying to take away our guns". The changes that are proposed on the "gun control" side don't involve taking away weapons from people who already legally own them. They usually aim to prevent people who have demonstrated significant anti-social tendencies or the inability to think clearly on a fundamental level from obtaining the ability to kill people with such convenience as a gun provides. No qualms from me on that one.
Gun control is such an interesting issue. Difficult though too. Great insight. My comment is meant to add to the discussion. Wasn't the main reason that the 2nd amendment was written to protect against government tyranny: that the people had a way to rebel against a corrupt government? Do you think that still applies today?
ReplyDeleteThe original intent has a few things behind it, but any nation with a strong established military is going to be able to fend of a civilian militia. Military coup would mostly likely be the form of rebellion in America, which the 2nd amendment wouldn't change since its part of the defense budget. Either way, I'm not against owning guns unless you plan to use that gun against me without reasonable precedent. The trouble is trying to determine who will use them in that way, and in my opinion our current laws hardly suffice to provide such protection.
ReplyDelete