The Gun Debate
Without fail, every time there is an incident of grave shootings in The United States, there seems to be a heated debate as to whether or not there should be more gun restrictions in place.
On one side you have the conservative views of people’s right to bear arms and that there should not be an implementation of more and stricter restrictions with regards to gun control.
On the other side of the aisle you have those who want less guns, more restrictions, and even harder access to obtain guns overall.
There are some who even look towards Australia when it tightened its belt with regards to gun control. And some who would like The United States to follow the lead of Australia and reduce the amounts of guns in the hands of Americans.
An Arms Race?
Here’s the main focus of the conservative view: Less restrictions so that more people will have guns with which to defend themselves.
The drawback to this argument is that more guns for people to defend themselves does not look as to who gets those guns. Yes, you will have more people who can protect themselves. But what you also get is more crazy people who can load up and shoot. It becomes almost like a society that is participating in an arms race, in which there are no winners, just more dead people.
tags: (none)
[…] writes about the gun debate and even the tape debate that seemed to follow after the […]
As if the Americans have not learned their lessons. They’re on their way to regressing to the wild, wild west. They have road rage, drive-bys and incidents like the VT.
They also have the biggest arms industry and without any wars to market their guns, they have to sell it to the people. The lobby groups such the NRA should be the first to institute reforms in their gun ownership policies.
Self-defense is the oldest alibi in the book. Its better to be gun-shy than gungho. Just look at where their Ramboesque culture got them.
Schumey,
You are exactly right on your assertion. However, when you see the current Democratic House in the United States stay mum on the issue, you realize just how much of an uphill battle gun control can be in The United States.
For politicians, it is safer to veer on the side of “The Right To Bear Arms”, than it is to start actual reforms when it comes to gun control.
In the end, U.S. politicians cater to their votes, and sadly, American culture favors the side of gun toting individuals…
The Second Amendment has been misused and abused. One thing is clear, their politicians are no better than ours. They would rather side with what is popular than support what is right. They wouldn’t risk their political career for something which is moral.
Oh my, WTF are you guys talking about!!!! It’s a democracy, of course the majority rules. If the majority want a gun crazy population, then the politicians should do what the majority want. I’m sorry, but that’s just how a democracy works
regardless, had the students been armed, 30 casualties would not have occurred
Sir Jorge, clearly you share the conservative viewpoint that less strict gun control would’ve done good, especially in this situation.
I understand the argument, but let’s look at the larger picture and view it in terms of the entire country of The United States.
Doesn’t having more ease in terms of getting a gun also mean that more mentally ill, and those with less than proper motives gain the ownership of guns as well?
Or maybe the debate here should’ve focused on why a mentally ill individual should’ve had access to guns in the first place.
In the end, maybe a better infrastructure in the procurement of guns, and not restrictions per sé could be better.
HindiAkoPinoy,
Thank you for the viewpoint. Yes, a majority rule policy maybe the cornerstone of Democracy, but let’s not forget that policy should also be made in terms of what is best for all its citizens not just those who share the majority viewpoint.