Like Countable?

Install the App
Back to article
Is Gun Violence in America the ‘Real National Emergency’?
by Countable
0 actions taken this week
  • Gerald
    Voted Maybe

    Let me start by saying that I own several guns and believe that gun ownership is a right. However, I do not believe that right is absolute. Once again the issues get obfuscated by those intent on political manipulation of the electorate. 1st comparing the use of knives or screwdrivers to the use of guns in crime is a non-sequitur. A red herring, an attempt to manipulate emotions. The aggressive use of a gun is much more likely to result in death than the use of any other weapon because it does significantly more damage. 2nd, saying guns don't kill people it's the user that kills is again an attempt to obfuscate the truth. It’s true that the violence is perpetrated by the user but when it comes to the protection of society and the chance of death common sense gun laws are a logical and conscientious response to the violence that is plaguing our modern American society. The NRA would gain significant support if they’d simply moderate their stance and advocate for common sense gun laws. As my father always told me if you aren't willing to control your own behavior then others will control it for you. Society has a fundamental right to protect itself that superseded the supposed right to bear arms. 3rd the argument that the 2nd amendment is sacred is the biggest fallacy perpetrated by the gun lobbyists. The 2nd amendment says that ”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” When the constitution was written the US had no standing army and relied on local militias to protect the nation. That held mostly true until after the civil war. Because we no longer rely on militias for our national protection we no longer have well regulated militias. If the first half of this amendment no longer applies then the second half if the amendment ceases to have a purpose. Further, it could be argued that given the lack of well-regulated militias the government has a responsibility to regulate gun ownership and usage to replace the regulations of those absent militias. The terms Well Regulated are the operative words in the 2nd amendment. 4th and last is the idea that if we just enforced the laws on the books we wouldn't need further gun regulation. On some level that is true but it doesn't solve the problem of gun violence and the easy access to guns in our culture. The argument that eliminating access to guns means only the criminals will have guns is again an emotional obfuscation of the reality of carefully crafted and enforced gun legislation. You are much less likely to be killed in Britain in any type of crime because of the absence of guns from their culture. I do Not advocate the almost draconian gun laws of England but the use of such a fallacious argument as removing guns from the mix means there won't be a reduction in gun violence is just another attempt to manipulate the emotions of the electorate for political gain. It's time to move beyond emotional debates and make some rational decisions that protect both society and the individual rights of life and liberty.

    Like (1)

Comment Liked by 1 User