Looking at "pro" vs. "anti"gun arguments, one most recognize and understand the complexities of the debate. To me, there should be a clear distinction between my personal desire to eradicate all guns from civilians, and my understanding of the 2nd amendment, which I think would reasonably allow for personal gun use in home for safety purposes and for hunting. With that, it is important to note the vague wording of the 2nd amendment, while you also look at the context of the time and environment in which the bill of rights was written. A friend brought up an interesting point the other night during a discussion of gun rights and the 2nd amendment. During that time, "bear arms" literally meant grabbing your own gun to use during war or battle. Clearly the U.S. no longer has a civilian army in the same sense as citizens did 250 years ago where men would grab their fire-arms and head off to the front lines.
My personal bottom-line for the entire gun ownership & conceal and carry debate is the lack of statistics proving areas with high gun ownership helps decrease violent crime. And I believe the statistical data is absent for good reason! To me, experimenting with gun-ownership and its purported minimization effect on crime is not a risk I, (or I believe anyone) should be willing to take. The supposed benefits of potentially lesser crime does not outweigh the dire consequences and risk of substantially more crime with more people holding guns.
Lastly, I have heard the argument that individuals with conceal and carry licenses are "rational", and the streets would be safer if more "rational" people went through the "rigorous" process of obtaining a conceal and carry license. There are two major flaws with that statement. First is with the rationality bit. In no way, shape, or form, does an applicant for a conceal and carry license go through a cognitive test or mental evaluation determining their level of mental health and wellness. So how does one know exactly how "rational" the applicants are compared to any other rando on the street? True, you must go through a background check, get fingerprinted, and take a gun shooting and safety class, but those things clearly have nothing to do with your mental psyche. As we saw with the tragedy in Arizona with gunman Jared Loughner, the issue of mental illness and gun-ownership was raised, and many lawmakers are questioning the screening process for purchasing and owning guns. Secondly, is filling out an application, getting a background check, your fingerprints taken, and a class on gun safety all that rigorous?? I honestly did exactly that and more for my Teach for America application. (Minus the shooting practice at a range -- supplement my experience with webinars and trainings on how to teach).
I could honestly go and go with this discussion, but here are my main points:
- Guns shouldn't be allowed on college campuses. EVER. Unless you are a trained police officer
- Because they are solely designed to kill, people should be very wary of loosening restrictions on gun ownership anywhere.
- The risks of more violent crime do not outweigh the potential benefits of lower crime in areas with high gun ownership or loose gun regulations
- There should be more restrictions on gun ownership and use
- Guns should only exist within your personal space (home) and in relation to hunting
- Guns are DANGEROUS, and this issue should NOT be taken likely. We should not assume the good in everyone, and be naive enough to believe that if someone went through the process of obtaining a license, they are "rational" and smart people using guns for the sole purpose of protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment