What Do I Stand For? Part 3 - Gun Control Issues
The United States has a love for freedom and a love for guns. As a free country, people tend to not take kindly to someone telling them they cannot do certain things or have what they want to have.
We even have a Second Amendment which guarantees a right to bear arms, no matter how awkwardly phrased it might be states, "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.". On the one hand it speaks about how a well regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state, then goes on to state the people have the right to keep and bear arms for such a purpose. Which to some implies that they were meaning for all citizens to become part of this well regulated militia and therefore should not be restricted when it comes to keeping guns. To others, this phrase implies two different concepts of the need for a militia and a need to have unrestricted access to guns.
So what's the problem?
When this Amendement cleared into the first draft of the Constitution, a war was being planned against a well armed and organized army. There was no such thing as a United States army during the Revolutionary War. The ones who would fight this battle were militia men with high ideals to fight off what was viewed as the unwanted guest in their land - the British Army.
For these colonists, there were rules and regulations about being armed which would make protecting themselves from these unwanted guests, not to mention the Natives whose land they were eyeing who were getting severely peeved, an easier task to help them in their freedom. In order to have protection without paying any tax to the King, people would have to get access to arms and to meet up in groups to fight for a common purpose.
When the war was won, the Constitution was already accepted as law. Before the actual war itself, this document was already signed and after the war all states agreed upon it. Even if the main threat of the British Army was no longer an issue, the new nation had other threat potentials and needed to maintain an armed militia until a more organized branch of an US Army could be created. With England out of the picture, other countries such as Spain and France could have easily picked at a weak target if there were no armed militia. As part of plans to expand their boundaries West, the Natives were not going to sit quietly as they were being pushed back further and further, so the new US citizens needed armed militias to help with the angry locals.
Times have changed from when this requirement was needed for the safety of all citizens. There are other Amendments in the Constitution that had to be updated to accommodate the changes in society. Whereas there have been changes to accommodate the fact that slavery was no longer acceptable and women had the right to vote and even the anti-liquor rule that was passed and repealed have all reflected changes to the evolution of this nation, perhaps it is time to re-think this one.
We are no longer under the same threat that required a militia. We have an Army, Air Force, Marines, National Guards, and even the local and state police which now serve as our well regulated militia. We are not in danger of being invaded by Mexico or Canada and unfortunately have destroyed the spirit of the Natives of this country who no longer pose a threat the Founding Fathers felt concerned on such issues. Today, we have real threats, but very different ones.
Out of all the countries in the world, the US ranks 8th for the most murders (homicides) per capita by handguns with a .02 per 1000 people who will die in this manner. In other words, for every 20,000 people, one person will be murdered by a gun. South Africa, Columbia, Thailand, Zimbabwae, Mexico, Belarus and Costa Rica all rank higher with South Africa leading the pack at .71 per 1000. These are all countries with loose or no regulations in regards to gun control.
Statistics
Gun control does not necessarily mean less crime. For example robberies which are generally carried out with guns, Spain ranked first with 497,262 in the year 2000. The United States ranked second with United States 409,670 in 1999 statistics. Spain has stricter gun control laws, yet they came in higher for robberies than a country with loose gun control laws.
Statistics
If guns were to be banned, then yes, only the criminals would have guns. This is seen as a dangerous situation when it comes to self defense. If someone breaks into your home, hijacks your car, or tries to rape you - they have a gun and you do not, the criminal will have the power to do what they want and leave you helpless.
It is one way to see the argument, but it is a weak one. Yes, the criminals would be in a better position to do what they wanted, but the likelihood that they would kill you would drop over the fact that they know you probably do not have a gun and are not in a position to harm them.
If guns were not readily available, there would be less guns in circulation leading to less crimes by gun.
Don't get me wrong, it is still America and the idea of any telling you what you can and cannot have will never sit well with anyone. I am not for banning all guns, just regulating them in a more responsible manner.
We need to have a license to drive a car. Why not have a license to own a gun? Why not make it mandatory for gun owners to take classes in gun safety, storage, care, and the law before being allowed to own and use a gun? Why not run a background check on those who want to own arms to make sure they do not have a criminal past or have proven to be a danger to themselves and others? Why not include a ban on people who have a restraining order placed on them?
I also believe the force they used on the so-called war on drugs has overcrowded prisons with people who need medical and psychological help to defeat a bad habit. This would make plenty of room to deal with the criminals who sell arms illegally. There should be a crackdown on these dealers. There are many honest, law abiding gun dealers whose businesses are being hurt by these thugs, not to mention the many honest, law abiding citizens who are being hurt by what these thugs sell.
It is not so much that the legally regulated arms are the problem as it is the unrestricted illegal arms trade that exists.
Yes, there are the temptations for those who are legally abiding citizens who own guns to become victims of their own weapons such as when kids get into them and fatal shoot themselves or another child or if depressed or in a heated family argument the gun is used to end it. Less access to guns would make fewer of these incidents. Among the law abiding, the most common reason for a gun death is by suicide and second domestic disputes.
In 1999, over 17,000 out of 29,000 American suicides were committed by gun versus the over 11,000 murders out of 17,000 were committed by handguns.
Statistics
Emory University professor Arthur Kellermann, one of the leading researchers studying that relationship, has found that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a household member than an outsider and that it is seven times more likely to be used in the murder or assault of a household member than an outsider.
The impact of injuries:
A new congressional study shows that an estimated 3,000 people with domestic-violence convictions were able to buy firearms between 1998 and 2001, because the FBI was unable to complete background checks before the sales went through, the Washington Post reported June 26.
Article by Join Together
Responsible people act responsibly with guns. It is unfair to completely deprive everyone who will be responsible with them from having access, but it is also a given that fewer guns do mean fewer deaths and accidents.
I am in favour of better, not more, gun control.
Need To Shop? Try The Carefree Mall
We even have a Second Amendment which guarantees a right to bear arms, no matter how awkwardly phrased it might be states, "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.". On the one hand it speaks about how a well regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state, then goes on to state the people have the right to keep and bear arms for such a purpose. Which to some implies that they were meaning for all citizens to become part of this well regulated militia and therefore should not be restricted when it comes to keeping guns. To others, this phrase implies two different concepts of the need for a militia and a need to have unrestricted access to guns.
So what's the problem?
When this Amendement cleared into the first draft of the Constitution, a war was being planned against a well armed and organized army. There was no such thing as a United States army during the Revolutionary War. The ones who would fight this battle were militia men with high ideals to fight off what was viewed as the unwanted guest in their land - the British Army.
For these colonists, there were rules and regulations about being armed which would make protecting themselves from these unwanted guests, not to mention the Natives whose land they were eyeing who were getting severely peeved, an easier task to help them in their freedom. In order to have protection without paying any tax to the King, people would have to get access to arms and to meet up in groups to fight for a common purpose.
When the war was won, the Constitution was already accepted as law. Before the actual war itself, this document was already signed and after the war all states agreed upon it. Even if the main threat of the British Army was no longer an issue, the new nation had other threat potentials and needed to maintain an armed militia until a more organized branch of an US Army could be created. With England out of the picture, other countries such as Spain and France could have easily picked at a weak target if there were no armed militia. As part of plans to expand their boundaries West, the Natives were not going to sit quietly as they were being pushed back further and further, so the new US citizens needed armed militias to help with the angry locals.
Times have changed from when this requirement was needed for the safety of all citizens. There are other Amendments in the Constitution that had to be updated to accommodate the changes in society. Whereas there have been changes to accommodate the fact that slavery was no longer acceptable and women had the right to vote and even the anti-liquor rule that was passed and repealed have all reflected changes to the evolution of this nation, perhaps it is time to re-think this one.
We are no longer under the same threat that required a militia. We have an Army, Air Force, Marines, National Guards, and even the local and state police which now serve as our well regulated militia. We are not in danger of being invaded by Mexico or Canada and unfortunately have destroyed the spirit of the Natives of this country who no longer pose a threat the Founding Fathers felt concerned on such issues. Today, we have real threats, but very different ones.
Out of all the countries in the world, the US ranks 8th for the most murders (homicides) per capita by handguns with a .02 per 1000 people who will die in this manner. In other words, for every 20,000 people, one person will be murdered by a gun. South Africa, Columbia, Thailand, Zimbabwae, Mexico, Belarus and Costa Rica all rank higher with South Africa leading the pack at .71 per 1000. These are all countries with loose or no regulations in regards to gun control.
Statistics
Gun control does not necessarily mean less crime. For example robberies which are generally carried out with guns, Spain ranked first with 497,262 in the year 2000. The United States ranked second with United States 409,670 in 1999 statistics. Spain has stricter gun control laws, yet they came in higher for robberies than a country with loose gun control laws.
Statistics
If guns were to be banned, then yes, only the criminals would have guns. This is seen as a dangerous situation when it comes to self defense. If someone breaks into your home, hijacks your car, or tries to rape you - they have a gun and you do not, the criminal will have the power to do what they want and leave you helpless.
It is one way to see the argument, but it is a weak one. Yes, the criminals would be in a better position to do what they wanted, but the likelihood that they would kill you would drop over the fact that they know you probably do not have a gun and are not in a position to harm them.
If guns were not readily available, there would be less guns in circulation leading to less crimes by gun.
Don't get me wrong, it is still America and the idea of any telling you what you can and cannot have will never sit well with anyone. I am not for banning all guns, just regulating them in a more responsible manner.
We need to have a license to drive a car. Why not have a license to own a gun? Why not make it mandatory for gun owners to take classes in gun safety, storage, care, and the law before being allowed to own and use a gun? Why not run a background check on those who want to own arms to make sure they do not have a criminal past or have proven to be a danger to themselves and others? Why not include a ban on people who have a restraining order placed on them?
I also believe the force they used on the so-called war on drugs has overcrowded prisons with people who need medical and psychological help to defeat a bad habit. This would make plenty of room to deal with the criminals who sell arms illegally. There should be a crackdown on these dealers. There are many honest, law abiding gun dealers whose businesses are being hurt by these thugs, not to mention the many honest, law abiding citizens who are being hurt by what these thugs sell.
It is not so much that the legally regulated arms are the problem as it is the unrestricted illegal arms trade that exists.
Yes, there are the temptations for those who are legally abiding citizens who own guns to become victims of their own weapons such as when kids get into them and fatal shoot themselves or another child or if depressed or in a heated family argument the gun is used to end it. Less access to guns would make fewer of these incidents. Among the law abiding, the most common reason for a gun death is by suicide and second domestic disputes.
In 1999, over 17,000 out of 29,000 American suicides were committed by gun versus the over 11,000 murders out of 17,000 were committed by handguns.
Statistics
Emory University professor Arthur Kellermann, one of the leading researchers studying that relationship, has found that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a household member than an outsider and that it is seven times more likely to be used in the murder or assault of a household member than an outsider.
The impact of injuries:
- Injuries account for more years of potential life lost before age 65 than all causes of cancer and all causes of heart disease combined.
- Every year more than 142,000 Americans die because of injuries, and another 80,000 are permanently disabled.
- Each year, more than 57 million people--one fourth of the nation's residents--are injured, and 2.3 million people are hospitalized due to injuries.
- Injuries in this country account for more than $44 billion in direct health-care costs.
- The total cost of firearm injuries in the United States in 1990 was an estimated $20.4 billion. This includes $1.4 billion for health care, $1.6 billion due to disability, and $17.4 billion in lost productivity due to premature death.
A new congressional study shows that an estimated 3,000 people with domestic-violence convictions were able to buy firearms between 1998 and 2001, because the FBI was unable to complete background checks before the sales went through, the Washington Post reported June 26.
Article by Join Together
Responsible people act responsibly with guns. It is unfair to completely deprive everyone who will be responsible with them from having access, but it is also a given that fewer guns do mean fewer deaths and accidents.
I am in favour of better, not more, gun control.
Need To Shop? Try The Carefree Mall
posted by Callen Damornen at 1:22:00 pm
1 Comments:
I admire your intentions, but feel that it is not really possible to have "fewer guns" in circulation. The gun control laws you would implement would mean fewer guns in the hands of those of us inclined to obey laws. The criminal element will still have access through illegal smuggling and manufacture- just as they have access now to illegal drugs.
If you wish to prevent child accidents with firearms, the answer is education. Just as no responsible parent would leave a child unsupervised around a swimming pool, no child should be left unsupervised around firearms. (BTW swimming pools kill more children than firearms and yet we don't see quite as many calls for swimming pool sales to be restricted).
Lastly, I'd like to comment on:
"...It is one way to see the argument, but it is a weak one. Yes, the criminals would be in a better position to do what they wanted, but the likelihood that they would kill you would drop over the fact that they know you probably do not have a gun and are not in a position to harm them."
I am not a criminal and don't know how they think. If they are victimizing you with a firearm, I think it is a stretch to assume that they are capable of making rational, moral decisions. I choose to rely on myself for my safety and not on the imagined mercies of a predator.
/respectfully
Post a Comment
<< Home