Quick and Dirty: The Gun Control Debate
Every time there’s a shooting the debate about gun control is reignited. But what is the debate really? For some it seems like common sense to limit types of guns or the number of bullets a gun can hold, while others explain that guns are more than a right, they’re the only way we can protect ourselves in this crazy world we all live in. Gun control debates, as we experience them today, date all the way back to the 1960s when gun rights came to the forefront of a national political issue.
The first modern gun-control laws which were passed in the 1930’s targeted machine guns, like the “Tommy Gun” used by Prohibition-era gangsters. Later, more laws were put in place in the late 1980’s and early 90’s that further restricted machine guns and other weapons and an established a background check system as well, and additional laws have been added over time since then. The political debate, though, has been raging since the 1960’s and has culminated in multi-million dollar lobbying campaigns seen today.
The Quick and Dirty
Against Gun Control:
Why's it bad?
What it doesn't do:
The Argument Against:
For Gun Control:
Why's it good?
What it doesn't do:
The Argument For:
Many state and local government bodies are pushing their own legislative efforts to regulate what they believe to be “problems” with gun ownership; ranging from banning trigger modifiers used by the disabled, to limits on how many bullets your firearm can hold at one time, to outright bans of a style or look of a rifle. But not all legislative measures are prohibitive! In fact, some states are taking the opposite approach in their efforts by allowing for more protection to gun owners via self-defense and carry-friendly laws.
Join in the Conversation!
We want to hear from you!
Join us on Discord - it's FREE.
The Second Amendment is very clear about anti-gun laws, “shall not be infringed” pretty much says it all. Everyone’s in favor of severe punishment for the misuse of firearms, but most gun laws are philosophically evil in that they seek to take away our freedoms and liberties because the possibility exists that we might, at some time in the future, break the law. Punishment should only be imposed after a crime is committed. We don’t ban cigarette lighters simply because a Bic could be used to commit arson. Why should I be denied full defensive rights simply because the gun that I use to protect me and mine could also theoretically be used to rob a bank? Gun laws rest on the theory that even though no banks have been robbed or any other crimes have been committed the government is still justified in depriving law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights because they “could” use guns to break the law. The rarely mentioned fact is that although too many times guns are used to commit crimes they are even more likely to be used to prevent crimes. For every time guns are used to take a life they are used to defend over fourteen lives.
It never addresses how gun control will keep guns out of the hands of the criminal element, only restricting the lawabiding citizen of their rights to have a firearm.
I agree with the first two comments. I also have read that the founding fathers didn’t include the 2nd amendment in the constitution for hunting and self defense. The 2nd amendment’s purpose is to allow the “people” to rise up against a government that becomes tyrannical. It’s interesting that the primary call for a ban is primarily for weapons that would be most effective against an army or governmental force. Never hear much about a pistol ban even though the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.