Would Restricting Guns Help Reduce Gun Violence?

Would Restricting Guns Help Reduce Gun Violence?

Only if we want to be a large-scale version of Chicago
75
views

Every year around election time there is a surge of gun sales. I realized this is a fear of not knowing the true morals of the running candidates and if they will somehow pass a law restricting our 2nd amendment. The second amendment says that we, as Americans, have the right to bear arms. This right was acknowledged by Isoroku Yamamoto during WW2 when he said, “There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” In the culture today, many entertain the idea that guns need more regulations, extra background checks, and training classes before obtaining a pistol permit with the justification that it will lower the number of deaths by gun violence. Although in theory, this makes sense, it needs to be compared to similar regulations that haven't exactly been proven successful.


1. When you turn 15 a person can obtain a driving permit.

In countries like Switzerland and Spain, to drive a car, you must be 18 years old. So one could suggest we join other countries and make the age higher. Well, if we did, would it really help create an environment where we as drivers followed more laws?

2. “If we had mandatory classes on guns before allowing someone to have a permit, they will be less likely to disobey the laws”

This is not true at all. Take driving for an example, to get your license you have to go through a class and then test. Well, how many people text while driving? How many legal drivers stream social media while driving? Therefore, would gun classes really point toward lowering gun violence?

3. Gun permit age is 18 in Alabama, but in Chicago there are laws that make permits near impossible.

Since there are strict laws, shouldn’t that mean Chicago should have less gun violence? Wrong. Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities in the USA due being a prime target for assailants. If during WW2 we were like Chicago, Generals like Isoroku Yamamoto most likely would have invaded without a second thought. Thus, the USA would be a larger version of Chicago.

4. “If we add more background checks, the ineligible will not be able to obtain guns.”

I would like to compare this to college students. If you are under 21, theoretically, you are unable to get into bars, buy alcohol, or drink at all. They are unable to obtain alcohol in any way. This is not true! Any one should know that if someone wants alcohol, they will find a way to get it. If there is some way around the law, it will be found. Therefore, it will be the same with guns.

5. “Cars are not as dangerous as guns”

According to the Insurance Information Institute, an estimated 2.44 million were injured in vehicular crashes in 2015. That is almost as many as the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US. But there were under 40,000 deaths via gun. Gun fatalities only relate to 1.3% of the total US deaths.

6. Kennesaw, GA

In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed an ordinance that every household must own a gun. A person may think this would spark a rise in crime rates. This is false. In 2007, Kennesaw, GA was murder-free for 25 years.

If it's not guns, the media will exaggerate some other issue. Even if all they are doing is spreading propaganda to aid running candidates' hidden agendas.

Cover Image Credit: pexels

Popular Right Now

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Ilhan Omar Is at Best Foolhardy and at Worst, Yes, Anti-Semitic

Her latest statements seem to lack substance, motivation, or direction.

339
views

I find the case of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to be a curious one.

Specifically, I am referring to the recent controversy over select comments of hers that have generated accusations of anti-Semitism. In all honesty, prior to doing research for this article, I was prepared to come to her defense.

When her comments consisted primarily of "Israeli hypnosis" and monied interest, I thought her wording poor, though not too egregiously deviated from that of most politicians in the current climate of bad behavior. After all, Israeli PACs surely do have a monied interest in the orientation of United States policy in the Middle East. Besides, if President Trump can hypothesize about killing someone in broad daylight and receive no official sanction, I don't see the need for the House of Representatives to hand down reprimand to Rep. Omar for simply saying that Israel may have dealt wrongly, regardless of the veracity of that position.

And yet, seemingly discontent that she had not drawn enough ire, Omar continued firing. She questioned the purported dual loyalty of those Americans who support the state of Israel, while also making claim that the beloved former President Obama is actually not all that different from the reviled current President Trump.

In short, the initial (mostly) innocuous statements about the United States' relation with Israel have been supplanted by increasingly bizarre (and unnecessary) postulations.

Those latest two controversies I find most egregious. Questioning the loyalty of an American citizen for espousing support for a heavily persecuted world religion and in defense of a refuge for practitioners of that self-same religion that has existed as an independent state since 1948, seems, in really no uncertain terms, anti-Semitic.

After all, is it not her own party that so adamantly supports persecuted Palestinians in the very same region? Is it not she and fellow Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) (who is not without her own streak of anti-Semitic controversy) that have rejected challenges to their own loyalty in being ethnically Somali and Palestinian respectively? Is her claim not akin to the "racist" demands that Obama produce proof of his birth in the United States, and the more concrete racism that asserted he truly was not? And (if you care to reach back so far) can her statement not be equated to suggestions that President John F. Kennedy would be beholden to the Vatican as the first (and to date only) Catholic to hold the presidency?

From what I can discern amongst her commentary, in Omar's mind, the rules that apply to her framework on race, ethnicity, religion, and culture as sacred idols above reproach do not extend to her Jewish contemporaries.

Oh, and may I remind you that over 70% of Jewish Americans voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016.

And yet, beyond even this hypocrisy, is the strange disdain Omar suddenly seems to hold for Barack Obama. Even as a non-Democrat, while I can find reason for this, it is still largely perplexing.

To begin with, I recognize that Ilhan Omar is not your prototypical Democrat. She would scoff at being termed a moderate, and likely would do the same to being labeled a traditional liberal. While she doesn't identify as an outright democratic socialist, one would have to be totally clueless to avoid putting her in the company of those who do, such as Tlaib or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

As such, she's bound to have some critical evaluations of President Obama, despite the lionizing that the Democratic establishment has and continues to engage in. Two points still stick out to me as obvious incongruities in her statement, however.

First, Obama and Trump are nothing alike. Again, this coming from someone who does not regularly support either, I can at least attempt to claim objectivity. While Obama might not have been faithful to all the demands of the far-left during his presidency, his position on the political spectrum was far from the extreme bent that Trump has ventured into.

Secondly, there is the style of the two men to consider. While Obama had his share of goofs and gaffes (I still think it somewhat juvenile that he often refused to say "radical Islamic terrorism" when referring to Islamist extremists) he pales in comparison to Trump. Every week Trump has his foot caught in a new bear trap. Obama is enormously tame in comparison.

And in addition to all of that, one must beg the question of Omar's timing. With Republicans emboldened by her controversies and House Democratic leadership attempting to soothe the masses, why would Omar strike out at what's largely a popular figure for those that support her most? There seemed no motivation for the commentary and no salient reasoning to back it up, save that Omar wanted to speak her mind.

Such tactlessness is something that'll get you politically killed.

I do not believe Barack Obama was a great president, but that's not entirely important. I don't live in Ilhan Omar's district; her constituents believe Obama was a great president, and that should at least factor into her considerations. Or maybe she did weigh the negative value of such backlash and decided it wouldn't matter? 2019 isn't an election year, after all. Yet, even if that's the case, what's to gain by pissing off your superiors when they're already pissed off at you?

You need to pick your battles wisely in order to win the war, and I'm highly doubtful Omar will win any wars by pitching scorched-earth tactics over such minute concerns.

Her attitude reminds me not only of that of some of her colleagues engaging obtusely and unwisely over subjects that could best be shrugged off (see the AOC media controversies), but also some of my own acquaintances. They believe not only in the myth of their own infallibility, but the opposition bogeyman conjured by their status in a minority or marginalized group. As the logic goes, "I'm a member of x group, and being so gives me the right to decimate anyone who has any inclination to stand against me in any capacity, tit for tat." So much for civility.

I initially came here to defend Rep. Ilhan Omar, and I still do hold to that in certain cases. The opposition to some of her positions is unwarranted. She is allotted the freedom of speech, as are all Americans.

And yet, in certain other cases she has conducted herself brashly, and, one could argue, anti-Semitically.

All I can say is that I am content living adjacent to Minneapolis, not in it. You'd be hard-pressed to find me advocating for leadership that makes manifest in such impolitic fashion.

Related Content

Facebook Comments