Awarren
Dec 28, 2013
Writing Feedback / Both sides have very valid points; GUN CONTROL [2]
Almost daily here in the United States we can turn on the news and hear that there has been some type of gun violence. It seems that with every incident there is fuel added to the fire that is the debate over gun control. For the most part there are two sides of the issue. There are those who believe that the only way to control guns is to set strict regulations on who can own them, what type they may own, the amount of ammunition the guns can hold. The more extreme side of this group thinks that it would be best if no one other than our police or military should have weapons. This is the pro-gun control side of the argument. There is the other side of the argument that thinks that the best way to prevent gun violence is to make sure that everyone is well armed. They believe that criminals are less likely to commit crimes in communities that are well armed. The more extreme members of this group believe that it is essential to protect them because perhaps one day they may need to be armed against their very own government. This is the anti-gun side of the argument. There is a third point of view that says that your chances of becoming a victim of gun violence are directly related to the social networks that you are close too. This argument is based solely on numbers and those who believe this don't seem to fall on either side of the argument.
When we examine both sides of this issue the first thing that you notice is how each side approaches the topic so differently. The pro-gun control uses rhetoric and emotion in order to sway Americans to their. When we see the news cast we are shown the crying family members who can only ask why this happened. Then they give us details about the killer, he was a loner who showed signs of mental illness or maybe just a regular guy whose circumstances changed and he snapped. Regardless of why it happened the pro-gun control side asks the question wouldn't it be better if they never had a gun? This message is carried to us by the media which does a fantastic job of stirring up all those emotions that also guide the pro-gun control cause. Once the question of whether or not this person should have a weapon is asked and the obvious answer is always no.
The next question becomes how we could have prevented him from having these weapons. This is where the issue gets a little messy as far as the anti-gun control folks are concerned. They feel that once there is a call to tighten the reigns of gun ownership for one group the only logical next step is to keep tightening until all gun rights are lost for everyone. Most pro-gun control advocates feel as though there should be more intense background check for people to carry guns. As well as an exclusion of people who have ever been treated for any type of mental illness. There are those who take the more extreme approach of a complete call to disarm everyone. Because if no one has a gun no one can go on a killing spree, and honestly it is hard to argue with that logic.
Another aspect that the pro-gun control advocates look at is the types of weapons that are used in these massacres. In the Sandy hook massacre the killer had to nine millimeter pistols with seventeen round clips and a semi-automatic rifle with a thirty round clip. Given the fact that most guns are used for either hunting or personal protection gun control advocates ask why a citizen needs to have so many bullets in their weapon. It seems to only invite overkill. Therefore along with the call for stricter background checks and tighter regulations for who can actually get a gun, there is also a call to regulate types of weapons and the capacity for ammunition that those weapons can hold. They feel that a gun should hold just enough ammunition to get the job done. Does it actually take seventeen rounds to stop someone from breaking into your home? Or is that just seventeen innocent lives that can be taken when a particular gun owner decides he want to go on a killing spree.
When you examine the pro-gun control side of the argument it is hard to dispute that there needs to be some action taken. However the anti-gun control side has some pretty strong arguments of their own. While the pro side uses rhetoric and emotion the anti-control side uses cold hard facts. They take emotions totally out of the equation and just present the numbers. According to the number gathered by just the facts, every time there was a gun control law applied there was a steep drop in gun violence for just a short while, then there was a gradual increase. The increase was generally higher later than then the levels that they previously were. The anti-gun law side feels that the best America is a well-armed America. The thought is that criminals are less likely to commit a crime in an area where people are most likely armed.
When the gun control opponents are asked about the issue of the disarming of everyone in America most of them would tell you that if you take guns from the law abiding citizens then only the criminals would be left with guns. This argument makes sense given the fact that the criminals with fire arms probably have them illegally anyway. Therefore when asked to turn in their weapons there would really be no reason to do so. The thoughts of those who hold their right to bear arms so dear to their hearts is that most of the "bleeding hearts" who are so desperate to control who may have, what type of gun and how much ammunition said gun should hold have never themselves handled a fire arm. They have no knowledge of just how hard it is to shoot someone in the dark or how powerful a hunting weapon needs to be. The focus is on the fact that this country was built on the right to bear arms. Some even believe that one day they may even have to take up arms against our own military just in case we ever enter a state of martial law.
Either way you look at the argument it is a difficult subject. On one hand you see the violence and you wish you could just sign a bill and make it stop. But on the other hand if you look at the historical data it shows that murders, robberies and violent crime increases when gun control laws are implemented. But what exactly is the answer. Both sides have very valid points. The fact is you have to take the data that is presented and make up your own mind.
Gun Control Draft
Almost daily here in the United States we can turn on the news and hear that there has been some type of gun violence. It seems that with every incident there is fuel added to the fire that is the debate over gun control. For the most part there are two sides of the issue. There are those who believe that the only way to control guns is to set strict regulations on who can own them, what type they may own, the amount of ammunition the guns can hold. The more extreme side of this group thinks that it would be best if no one other than our police or military should have weapons. This is the pro-gun control side of the argument. There is the other side of the argument that thinks that the best way to prevent gun violence is to make sure that everyone is well armed. They believe that criminals are less likely to commit crimes in communities that are well armed. The more extreme members of this group believe that it is essential to protect them because perhaps one day they may need to be armed against their very own government. This is the anti-gun side of the argument. There is a third point of view that says that your chances of becoming a victim of gun violence are directly related to the social networks that you are close too. This argument is based solely on numbers and those who believe this don't seem to fall on either side of the argument.
When we examine both sides of this issue the first thing that you notice is how each side approaches the topic so differently. The pro-gun control uses rhetoric and emotion in order to sway Americans to their. When we see the news cast we are shown the crying family members who can only ask why this happened. Then they give us details about the killer, he was a loner who showed signs of mental illness or maybe just a regular guy whose circumstances changed and he snapped. Regardless of why it happened the pro-gun control side asks the question wouldn't it be better if they never had a gun? This message is carried to us by the media which does a fantastic job of stirring up all those emotions that also guide the pro-gun control cause. Once the question of whether or not this person should have a weapon is asked and the obvious answer is always no.
The next question becomes how we could have prevented him from having these weapons. This is where the issue gets a little messy as far as the anti-gun control folks are concerned. They feel that once there is a call to tighten the reigns of gun ownership for one group the only logical next step is to keep tightening until all gun rights are lost for everyone. Most pro-gun control advocates feel as though there should be more intense background check for people to carry guns. As well as an exclusion of people who have ever been treated for any type of mental illness. There are those who take the more extreme approach of a complete call to disarm everyone. Because if no one has a gun no one can go on a killing spree, and honestly it is hard to argue with that logic.
Another aspect that the pro-gun control advocates look at is the types of weapons that are used in these massacres. In the Sandy hook massacre the killer had to nine millimeter pistols with seventeen round clips and a semi-automatic rifle with a thirty round clip. Given the fact that most guns are used for either hunting or personal protection gun control advocates ask why a citizen needs to have so many bullets in their weapon. It seems to only invite overkill. Therefore along with the call for stricter background checks and tighter regulations for who can actually get a gun, there is also a call to regulate types of weapons and the capacity for ammunition that those weapons can hold. They feel that a gun should hold just enough ammunition to get the job done. Does it actually take seventeen rounds to stop someone from breaking into your home? Or is that just seventeen innocent lives that can be taken when a particular gun owner decides he want to go on a killing spree.
When you examine the pro-gun control side of the argument it is hard to dispute that there needs to be some action taken. However the anti-gun control side has some pretty strong arguments of their own. While the pro side uses rhetoric and emotion the anti-control side uses cold hard facts. They take emotions totally out of the equation and just present the numbers. According to the number gathered by just the facts, every time there was a gun control law applied there was a steep drop in gun violence for just a short while, then there was a gradual increase. The increase was generally higher later than then the levels that they previously were. The anti-gun law side feels that the best America is a well-armed America. The thought is that criminals are less likely to commit a crime in an area where people are most likely armed.
When the gun control opponents are asked about the issue of the disarming of everyone in America most of them would tell you that if you take guns from the law abiding citizens then only the criminals would be left with guns. This argument makes sense given the fact that the criminals with fire arms probably have them illegally anyway. Therefore when asked to turn in their weapons there would really be no reason to do so. The thoughts of those who hold their right to bear arms so dear to their hearts is that most of the "bleeding hearts" who are so desperate to control who may have, what type of gun and how much ammunition said gun should hold have never themselves handled a fire arm. They have no knowledge of just how hard it is to shoot someone in the dark or how powerful a hunting weapon needs to be. The focus is on the fact that this country was built on the right to bear arms. Some even believe that one day they may even have to take up arms against our own military just in case we ever enter a state of martial law.
Either way you look at the argument it is a difficult subject. On one hand you see the violence and you wish you could just sign a bill and make it stop. But on the other hand if you look at the historical data it shows that murders, robberies and violent crime increases when gun control laws are implemented. But what exactly is the answer. Both sides have very valid points. The fact is you have to take the data that is presented and make up your own mind.