Coming off of last week’s topic on how to form public opinions, this week’s topic of gun control generates strongly held opinions. I know this is a very polarized topic, so I will be considering both the left or right today. In fact, I see two sides to the gun debate every time a mass shooting happens.
(used with permission and purposefully anonymous)
Both types of posts believe in the importance of human life but differ on what type of action needed to take to prevent violence.
I grew up in the American South. My father owned a gun, and my grandfather owns multiple guns. However, these are not assault rifles capable of firing multiple rounds. These guns are intended for protection and have never been used for a purpose other than hunting. I may not agree with the ownership of guns, but I also understand the importance some people place in guns. I’m also not writing this article today to attack people who own guns or believe in gun rights.
I share the same opinion of the two posts that we see above; we should be concerned about the loss of human life. Looking outside of the United States at countries like Australia and the U.K., it seems so apparent that controlling guns prevents the loss of human life. There is the question of how the United States should try to regulate guns.
I want to share how a liberal justifies these laws, but I also do not want to ignore or attack the conservative side. I believe it’s important to know both sides of an issue and to try and understand people’s views. Progress is almost impossible if people remain ignorant to other opinions. With that being said, let’s start with some of the federal regulations on guns.
The second amendment states that every citizen has the right to bear arms. Under federal law, you must be a US citizen, resident, or a non-illegal alien in the country for the purpose of hunting, in order to own a gun. It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon unless it was manufactured before May of 1986.
These are not all the laws, but they are the ones that I found relevant for today. When purchasing automatic weapons there are background checks and it is extremely expensive. Semi-automatic weapons are much cheaper and require no background checks for private sales in some states. That fact still shocks me when I read it. Background checks do not prevent all violence, but I think both the left and the right can agree that it is important to catch a possible perpetrator of a mass shooting with a background check.
Background checks will not keep guns away from people who hunt or want protection. They most likely will not keep away every madman who wants to cause terror, but they will keep people who have a criminal record or other red flags from owning a gun. Both conservatives and liberals want to protect and preserve human life, and that is the purpose of background checks.
Assault rifles have the same connotation to me. I understand that the average person uses them for shooting in a way that is perfectly safe, but I continue to see them as weapons of war. I also don’t think they should be available to civilians. Instead of directly banning these weapons, it may appease both parties if there is a ban placed on semi-automatic weapons like we have on automatic weapons.
An alternative to this could be limiting the ownership of semi-automatic rifles to shooting ranges and requires them to have licenses and strict rules over using these weapons for sport. These solutions do infringe upon people’s rights under the second amendment or overreach. By having a partial ban on semi-automatic weapons, people still have access to the guns typically used for hunting and protection. These weapons could still be used in a way that is responsible and safe while also helping prevent massive terrorist attacks.
Once again, these laws would not be preventing gun ownership. As in Australia and the U.K., you would still be able to own guns for protection and for hunting. They would be preventing unnecessary loss of human life. In fact, I want you to take what you learned from last week, regarding consuming different opinions in media and apply your own opinion to this topic. There is a congressional vote for gun silencers and there will probably be a debate about selling “bumps” on guns in the future. Please feel free to read on these and email or call your Congressman (in fact I emailed my Congressman regarding gun control this week). I will also provide some articles at the bottom for you to read from a variety of sources.
For the closing of this article, I would like to pose some questions to you:
At what point do you value guns over human life?
What is your view on both background checks and assault rifle bans?
Do you believe civilians should be allowed to own assault rifles?
How should the US prevent mass shootings in the future?
Additional Reading:
Onyanga-Omara, Jane. “Gun Violence Rare in U.K. Compared to U.S.” USA Today, 16 June 2016, www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/.
Batsakis, Anthea, and Christine McGinn. “Australian Gun Laws Changed after Port Arthur, so Why Won’t USA Change Its Gun Laws?” Herald Sun, 3 Oct. 2017, www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australian-gun-laws-changed-after-port-arthur-so-why-wont-usa-change-its-gun-laws/news-story/ff87502dfe937a00b02c2651ff57cde6.
Buchanan, Larry, et al. “Nine Rounds a Second: How the Las Vegas Gunman Outfitted a Rifle to Fire Faster.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/02/us/vegas-guns.html?src=trending.
Ferrechio, Susan. “Democrats Propose Banning 'Bump Stocks' like the Ones Used in Las Vegas Shooting.” Fox News, Washington Examiner, 4 Oct. 2017, www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/04/democrats-propose-banning-bump-stocks-like-ones-used-in-las-vegas-shooting.html.
Godfrey, Elaine. “Did the Las Vegas Shooting Involve an Automatic Weapon?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 2 Oct. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/automatic-weapons-regulation/541803/.
