Gun control has been a hot-button topic in our
country for a lengthy period of time. Should private citizens have the right to
have own a gun? If so, should there be regulations on what type of guns they
should be allowed to own? Should the government just stay out of our personal
business and let us live by the constitution? There are polar opposite views regarding
this question and this topic would probably be one to stay from at your next
dinner party if two opposing views are in attendance.
LaFollette (2007) stated that, though most people do
not realize, there are many different views regarding gun control. Not all
people solely support or adamantly oppose gun control. An individual could also
hold an opinion that is a mixture of the two views. According to LaFollette
(2007), a moving scale exists for both the degree of abolition and the degree
of restriction an individual feels toward guns. Some people may feel there
should be no restrictions and no abolition where others may feel that there
should be moderate restrictions and moderate abolition. My opinion lies in moderate abolition and
moderate restrictions.
Growing up in Mississippi, I was exposed to guns at
a very young age. Though I was never a good shot, my grandfather began teaching
me to shoot while I was in elementary school. As a child, I had a very neutral
feeling toward guns. I knew they were used for hunting and could be very
dangerous, but we were taught gun safety, so I should just be careful. Two
instances occurred that changed my view on gun control and the right to bear
arms. The first event that began to shape my opinion occurred while I was in
high school and the second event, which cemented my opinion, occurred last
summer.
In April of 1999 when two students went into
Columbine High School in Colorado killing 13 people and injuring much more,
this event shocked everyone in the country and hit hard at my high school.
These were kids our age and the lives of the individuals who were lucky enough
to escape with their lives were changed forever. This event made me begin to
think that some sort of restrictions should be placed on the guns that individuals
are allowed to purchase. The suspects in the shooting obtained two
semi-automatic weapons to assist in their plan. According to Obmascik,
Robinson, and Olinger (2009), the weapons were purchased by one of the suspect’s
girlfriends at The Tanner Gun Show. Why was this allowed? Why would an
eighteen-year-old girl need two high powered weapons? In my opinion, there is
no good reason for her to need two guns of that caliber.
I currently live in a small beach town in Florida
that is about 50 miles from Orlando. After the events that occurred last June
at Pulse nightclub that cost 49 men and women their lives, my disdain for
high-powered weapons grew even stronger. This event rocked our community to its
core. According to Daily and Harris (2016), the shooter purchased an assault
rifle and Glock from his neighborhood gun shop, which is a federally licensed
firearm dealer, on back to back days. The second purchase required the dealer
to run the shooters name against the Terror Screening database, but
unfortunately, the shooter’s name was removed in 2014, so the sales were
approved. Once, again there was no reason for this individual to be able to
walk into the local firearm dealer and buy two high-powered weapons within the
same week.
I understand that motive, and possibly mental
health, played a large role in these unthinkable scenarios and the individuals
may have gone about their plan even without the weapons. But, I do not anyone
would argue against the damage being limited if the assault weapons were not so
readily available. Maybe I have a dislike for the system along with the weapons,
but I believe that restrictions should exist when it comes to the firearms a
private citizen should be allowed to own. Assault rifles and semi-automatic
weapons should only belong to the military. The danger in citizens owning
weapons of this caliber has repeatedly reared its ugly head.
Most people that stand behind the right to bear arms
have two arguments including (a) the second amendment and (2) the fact that
guns do not kill people- people do. I am one who would never want to change the
Constitution. I wholeheartedly believe in the right to bear some arms, but also
think that when our forefathers built this country they did not envision guns
that could shoot hundreds of bullets in a matter of seconds. I once saw a
parody poking fun of the second amendment and what our forefathers may have
been thinking when it was created. It showed an individual dressed in colonial
attire come into a crowded club with a gun from that time period. He then fires
one shot and misses. When he begins to reload he is tackled to the ground and
disarmed. I would argue that if the creators of the Constitution could have
seen the future then they would have created boundaries to the second
amendment. Also, when the second amendment was created, guns were much more
needed. First, a fight for our independence was taking place in our country. Most
men, and some children, were involved in the war so a gun was a priority. Also,
hunting to survive was much more prevalent. Firearms were used as a survival
tool in the late 1700’s.
I understand that a gun is not a living being and
does not have a decision to be fired. As LaFollette (2007) stated, “No gun
control advocate claims, hints, or suggests that guns are moral agents” (p.
183). It is understood that the gun is not the being that decides to create
harm, but the harm could be limited if some guns were not available to
citizens. The fact the guns are not moral agents does not take away from the
fact that they are dangerous and certain guns should be restricted.
I make this argument not ‘come after all of the guns’,
which is the response I have received from some individuals while having this
discussion. I think guns used for personal protection and hunting are needed. I
own a gun and have it in my closet. It is a single round shotgun and I own it
solely for protection. The only function it serves is to give me and my
girlfriend a better chance at survival if someone decides to break in our home.
I do not want to abolish guns completely because I would lose my protection. I
only argue that high-powered and automatic weapons serve no right being in the
hands of private citizens. There is also no need for Kevlar piercing bullets.
According to BBC (2015), over 50 US senators argued against a proposed ban on
Kevlar piercing bullets citing it was an opposition to the second amendment.
The ban was never put into place, so the bullets are still available in the US.
The only function of a Kevlar piercing bullet is to kill the individual wearing
the vest. I understand the bullets fall under the second amendment, but, I do
not see how a person on either side of the debate can argue this scenario is
ethical.
References
BBC. (2015). US agency drops efforts to ban armour-piercing bullets.
Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31827249
Daly, M., & Harris, S. (2016). How the Orlando Killer Omar Mateen got
his guns. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/13/how-the-orlando-killer-omar-mateen-got-his-guns.html
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Obmascik, M., Robinson, M., & Olinger, D. (1999). Oficials say
girfreind bought guns. Retrieved from
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0427a.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment