Published on February 19, 2014
1 Stephen Sutphin February 12, 2014 Prof. Harold Blanco FYS 100 Gun Control and You The readings from Marshall University point of view database (Gun Control: An Overview, Point: Controlling Gun Violence is more important than controlling guns, and Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives) provided a powerful bit of information. All three readings all waged war on one thing that Americans currently have, the right to bear arms. This topic has been very controversial for many decades now with bans being put into place by people such as Senator Dianne Feinstein. Another underlying issue that is being debated is the definition of a wellregulated militia. When the constitution was written we didn’t have AK-47s, M16s, or any other high powered rifle that could fire more than 2 shots a minute; current weapons fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. There are two sides to every story and this battle is no exception. On the side fighting for more guns and less regulation we have the NRA. (National Rifle Association) The NRA is a pro gun group that lobbies to get the bans on weapons lifted and keep the laws at a minimum for the purchase and ownership of firearms. Out of the groups that fight for more guns and less regulations the NRA is the powerhouse, they are the ones who jump at the opportunity to slam anti-gun groups and their agendas. The NRA does have a very valid argument; they say that we are
2 doing nothing but punishing law abiding Americans when we pressure to remove guns from the home. The other side of the story is the lesser known of the two powerhouses fighting to dominate the gun control world, this group is known as Brady. Brady is the total opposite of the NRA; they want stricter gun laws to limit firearms and their many uses. The Brady group and similar groups sit back and wait for tragedies such as Newtown, Columbine, and Virginia Tech to promote what they want; more regulations on firearms. The arguments that are made by Brady and similar parties are that when we take the firearms away from people there will be a drop in violence across the country. There are some major fallacies coming from both sides the bulk of them being the definition of a well-regulated militia. When this was written in the United States Constitution we, as a population of people didn’t have access to the types of weaponry that we do now. When the constitution was written we didn’t have a National Guard it was up to a well-regulated militia to defend our homeland from foreign invaders. Now we have the National Guard to protect us. Are we still in need of a well-regulated militia now that we have the National Guard, this is a matter of opinion that has been at the heart of the debate. Another fallacy that has come up in the debate is the definition of an assault weapon. We as people judge books by their covers; you can have many weapons that aren’t classified as “assault” weapons that do much more damage than an assault weapon. We can’t judge something that shoots a bullet based on the looks of the weapon that would be like
3 comparing two cars. Yes the cars may look similar but under the hood could be a 1000 horsepower motor or no motor at all. There are good arguments though on how to help keep America a safer place. The one argument that stuck out is one for stricter background searches on people and a longer waiting period. The background checks are a mandatory to ensure that nobody who is not fit to own a firearm comes into contact with one. Felons and the mentally ill should and have been banned from purchasing firearms in the United States; there is a very serious loophole in this though. The background checks are currently not mandatory at gun shows that are held throughout the country each and every day of the year. The gun control debate affects everybody and every family in America. You may not realize it but you are being affected by the gun control debate. This has affected most Americans by being heckled by the government over their firearms. Not everybody who has a gun is a killer or a psychopath. Some people are not fit to own firearms and need their rights to be taken away from them. Today I will be taking a stand for more rules in America. I will be discussing why we as Americans need to have fewer firearms. I believe that if we eradicate firearms from America there will be less gun violence. We will be taking more weapons off the streets that could be used to cause bodily harm to people when they get mad. We need to begin to view everybody who carries a gun as a threat. Why do people need to carry a weapon that has the capacity to hold more than 5 bullets at a time? If you feel the need to carry a gun that holds more than 5 bullets then you must be either a bad shot or be content on doing some serious damage to a “larger”
4 group of people. In New York, you are only allowed to have a magazine capacity of 10 bullets. I agree with them and support them on trying to cut down on the size of magazines from 10 to 7 bullets. If you are good with your weapon then it should only take you one shot to deal with your problem. As mentioned in Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives, nobody needs an AK-47 to kill a deer. There is no reason for an American to own an AK-47. The fact that there is 30,000 guns related deaths each year in America is staggering and we are setting a terrible trend by taking out that many of our own each year with firearms.
5 REFERENCE Ballaro, B. (2013). Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives. Points Of View: Gun Control, 3. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/31/federal-courtupholds-ny-assault-weapons-ban/4266385/ Lee, M. (2013). Gun Control: An Overview. Points Of View: Gun Control, 1 Bowman, J. (2013). Point: Controlling Gun Violence is More Important than Controlling Guns. Points Of View: Gun Control, 2.