Watching our President give his condolences to the families who lost their children brings a fact and value claim that there should be stronger gun control in the United States of America. According to our President he implicitly states that there should be stronger laws and standards that need to be instated so shootings like the one in Oregon can possibly be prevented. By taking away the weapons that take the lives of people around our country every day. He states that if there are less guns there will be less death and shootings. If this is common sense to everyone that there should be stricter gun laws, then why haven't previous presidents in the nineteen eighties or the nineteen nineties impose laws that would cause shootings to be nonexistent. The book even suggests that in the eyes of the theory of the beholder, that this theory of having stricter laws is a good thing. To another person who lives in a rough part of a city needs to have a way to defend themselves when a cop is not always readily available to give a presence of safety. This notion of stricter gun laws could have prevented the terrible events of Columbine, Sandy Hook, and the shootings in Oregon. Up until the recent shootings in Oregon, I have noticed that the media mainly focuses on the shootings that have a student shooting other students or faculty. For some reason they leave out when another person besides a student is doing the shooting. Whether it be a soldier, a police officer, or a civilian doing the shooting. But if it is a student doing it everyone loses their minds. From what I take away from that is for no reason should a child should be shooting anyone. For being one of the largest military driven countries why is it okay that military and police officers are the ones that are the ones to carry guns as their way of defending themselves. To me it seems that a common "common sense," is that no matter what there will always be a cop with a gun on their hip.
I think your blog hits it home for this week considering gun control is even more of a hot topic since the shooting at the college last week. I like your different outlook of the situation and think society needs to do the same in order for there to be a resolution for these series of gun related tragedies.
ReplyDeleteYou raised some interesting points in the post regarding guns.. and that it is common sense sense previous presidents have not done anything about it, I have not thought about it in that way. However I have very different opinions on guns mostly because of my cultural background, I think most of the world think it is crazy that there isn't any stricter gun laws yet, and why are americans so crazy about their guns, when we are fine without guns? But still though.. that is common sense for us.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly disagree. There is a saying that "the gun drawn is always faster than the gun in the holster."
ReplyDeleteSo, to you, it may seem like common sense that if more people can have guns, it would mean that more people would be able to defend themselves. However, I believe the contrary.
Draw a parallel between guns and cars. No one would argue that guns are also a powerful tool. Nor would anyone argue that they can make the lives of some (if not most peoples') lives easier to own, or have easy access to, a car.
But do you know what no one complains about? When cars are regulated. Government mandated safety features (air bags, seat belts, crumple zones), laws about how they're operated (speed limits, traffic laws), and when they're operated (only when sober) needing a license and insurance to operate them... and the list goes on. Those things are accepted as the commonsense norm.
It isn't a stretch to imagine that more cars with less laws would maybe get more people access to cars and their benefits, but to what end? More accidents, more deaths, more people driving drunk? Would it be worth it?
So let me ask you: is having more access to guns for more people worth it? Is it hard to believe that more guns with less safety issues would create more safety issues, like it would with guns?
Or should we regulate them, add laws? Laws that would make them safer, and, as a result, solve their public image issue.
To me, the common sense solution is to take this powerful tool, that even in the right hands, hand guns and hunting rifles are designed to kill. Why shouldn't something with such power have regulations? Does anyone really need access to the ability to kill by picking something up and pulling a trigger?
Before you dare make the Second Amendment, think of it this way: the First Amendment has regulations. Limits on where people can protest, needing permits, etc. Why not add those limitations to the Second Amendment?
Why not add regulations that make things safer? Why create the United States into a 21st Century wild west when we could simply make it more civilized by passing a few laws and regulations?
To me, THAT is common sense.
It is common sense for me to not wonder where I would hide if someone came in to an open space I was in with an AR-15. Not to have to look around and hope there was someone around with a handgun who happened to be a good guy who would magically stop a guy with a drawn AR-15 with his handgun in the holster.