This website discusses ten arguments against gun control and against stricter laws preventing civilian weapon possession. Two of the ten arguments stood out to me most, the first being argument number three.
Argument three discusses how something like a gun prohibition law would be similar to the 18th amendment (January 17, 1920) which prohibited the production, transportation and sale of alcohol within the United States. This Amendment was wildly un-popular with the public even though it was very popular in congress and lead to a phenomenal increase in crime rates, (because people simply carried on producing and selling alcohol) as well as an increase of deaths from people brewing their own moonshines and poisoning themselves. Not to mention the gang related crimes increasing, as the website mentioned gangsters such as Al Capone thrived on controlling the importation to entire cities and became extremely rich very quickly. I agree that if guns were prohibited or stricter laws were put in place we would see an extremely similar situation, and a definite increase in gang wars related to weapons trade.
The next argument that stood out to me was argument two and it was entitled 'Laws do not apply to criminals'. In the argument it states 'Laws against murder and violence do not apply to those who intend to die whilst killing as many people as they can.' This is the simplest way to put it, criminals do not care, a criminal will always break the law but a civilian (otherwise known as law-abiding citizen) will not which leaves the civilians without protection for their homes and families. I am not saying that every criminal owns a weapon but they are easy to obtain in America and if gun control laws were brought in I believe the black market for weapons would increase to almost wholesale size making it even easier for criminals to obtain weapons.
Lets move onto the pro-gun control website (The Progressive Cynic), click here.
The second amendment is this websites first port-of-call. The second amendment is said to be the gun lovers 'catch-all defense to their right to carry any weapon that they can get their hands on'. Now I understand the point that the pro-gun control side is trying to make but it just seems a bit of a feeble argument, it is used as a catch-all defence but that is no reason to impose stricter laws. The website goes on to discuss the fact that in it's most literal and law-abiding sense the second amendment does not allow the 'individual, un-attached American' to bare arms. Though surely as time progresses the constitution has to be taken literally within modern limits and factors as now their is a national military rather than separate militias for each state, the second amendment says that the members these militias have the right to bare arms, but whose to say that everyone cannot be part of the militia within their state as in it is almost an open militia.To sum this blog up, for me gun control laws are adequate and are what they should be. I don't believe that any form of further gun restrictions or prohibitions should be enforced but I certainly do not believe that gun laws should lessen, though it wouldn't hurt for schools to introduce gun education talks and/or compulsory weapons training for anyone holding certain weapons.
Sources:
http://listverse.com/2013/12/12/10-arguments-against-gun-control/
http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/600x3691.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment