The Equality Argument For Gun Control- An Affirmative View

Those who are against gun control claim that it denounces our liberty as American citizens. Those who are pro-gun control have used public safety as their main argument, yet they have failed to convince federal government to increase restrictions on guns for the past 20 years.  However, what people aren’t that aware of is that the pro-gun control debate can be supported with another aspect of this issue: equality. With this argument, gun control advocates can focus on the relationship between guns and inequality and can argue that stricter restrictions for guns is an important step towards social justice and economic empowerment. The article The Equality Argument For Gun Control, sheds light on the concept equality and its relation to gun control.

Guns create inequality in our country because it tends to increase violence and instability for those who live in low income communities. It has been found that violent crime rates are higher in certain areas. The widespread availability of guns makes it easier to commit more crime and lead to more destruction. In July of 2016, 82 people were shot in Chicago and most of them were a part of the South Side community, where crime rates are 10 times higher than wealthy areas of the city. When comparing the wealth of two particular areas, it is clear that areas with high income are less likely to experience violent crime. Economic inequality plays a role in the prevalence of gun violence. It occurred to me, after reading this article, that certain people are more susceptible to either committing or being victim to gun violence simply based on demographics. When anti-gun control politicians argue in favor of guns it is biased view. Wealthy, white politicians are less likely to encounter gun violence in their life; therefore, it is not fair that their voice is the only one heard in the government. Citizens in Chicago, for example, should be able to voice their opinions during this debate. If there is a more diverse group of people controlling the legislation, there may be extreme change in regard to gun control. The inequality that occurs in our country may be unknowingly fueling gun violence

Gun violence is related to inequality due to the notion that particular groups of people fall victim to these shootings more than others. Unfortunately, every American can be a victim of one of these heinous crimes, however, mass shooters have targeted marginalized groups in the past. These groups include women, children, and religious and racial minorities. These groups do not have the power, resources, or influence to help enforce stricter gun laws. They become the victim due to the lack of restrictions that our country has and the underlying issue of inequality. These violent massacres stem from hateful people who are guilty of anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, and other social discriminations. Guns are too easily accessible and make these crimes deadlier.

“When it comes to gun policy, the equal protection of the law must be no less important than the right to bear arms.”

Gun control has been continuously debated and the population in favor uses their freedom to own a weapon as their main argument. The debate has always been between the right to bear arms and the dangers of the weapon itself, however, it needs to be reevaluated to discuss the issue of inequality within our country. The danger of gun violence is not distributed equally in our society, therefore a small group of people in government should not control the laws for the entirety of the United States. Low income neighborhoods and minority groups are at more of a risk to be victims of these crimes than others. This aspect of the gun control debate must be discussed in order to move forward with creating new policies.

Joe Biden’s Muddled Response to the Texas Shooting Was Unintentionally Revealing

An article by the National Review discusses the aftermath of a recent shooting. The Sutherland Springs, Texas shooting presented a huge problem for those that claim the government has all of the answers for gun control. The government failed and it was up to a individual to stop one of the worst mass shootings in American history. This man was not allowed on multiple grounds to own a gun, yet he still got his hands on one. The
police were not near the church and couldn’t intervene quickly enough. It took a bystander with an AR-15 to end this shooting. During the aftermath, people were stunned when former vice president, Joe Biden, claimed that the Texas hero who stopped the Sutherland Springs shooting never should have owned the gun he used to do so. 

Why Gun Control Loses, and Why Las Vegas Might Change That

After the recent mass shootings such as Las Vegas and Orlando, there have been complaints for more gun control laws in the U.S. According to The New York Times article, we need to have the debate about guns and mass murder that the Republicans and National Rifle Association (NRA) keep avoiding. Gun rights are one of the few issues where Republicans are actually in touch with what the Americans want. The article discusses why gun control is losing and how the recent events may change that. 

David Anderson: The U.S. Doesn’t Need More Gun Control- A Refutation View

To gain a better understanding of gun control in general, it is important to research and understand the perspective of anti-gun control advocates and their personal feelings on the matter. The Huffington Post wrote an article on an interview that was conducted with David Anderson. Anderson has been a member of the National Riffles Association (NRA) for over 50 years and is a strong believer in the right to bear arms. He makes multiple claims about why gun control is an ineffective tool to stopping gun violence. I will be refuting three of the claims that he made during his interview. Although his arguments are passionate, there is no true validity behind his statements.

The first topic he discusses are background checks. He claims that they are entirely ineffective. He believes they are not comprehensive enough to be prevent crime and the policies are not enforced correctly throughout the country. Even if his claims were true, it does not mean America should “do away” with them entirely but rather fix the existing problems. While researching information on background checks and analyzing the recent shootings throughout our country, I came across a shocking piece of information. A recent shooting in a Texas church has tragically left 26 people dead. This heinous crime was committed by a man named Devin Patrick Kelly. To further understand how gun control plays a role in this situation I began to research more about Devin Patrick Kelly himself. It turns out he was not eligible to purchase the assault rifle he used in this shooting. He was court-martialed by the Air Force in 2012. Also, he served a year in prison and received a bad conduct discharge in 2014 for assault on his spouse and their child.  While Anderson claims that background checks are ineffective, it is clear that a more extensive check for Kelly could have prevented this shooting. With stricter and more clear regulations, 26 people may have still been alive today. It is not the background check that is ineffective but rather the way in which its enforced. We need more extensive regulations when purchasing weapons. Something as simple as a background check could have saved 26 people.

The second argument that he makes is in regard to gun free zones. A gun free zone is when a certain location bans the concealment and use of guns. He claims that these zones ineffective as well. He believes the best way to stop gun violence is by having more presence of guns around, rather than banning them. If a shooter has a high chance of being shot and killed by officials, Anderson claims it will deter him/her from committing the crime. This argument is not strong. There are ways to execute mass shootings inwhich you do not have to be in the presence of anyone. Stephen Paddock, the shooter in Las Vegas, was alone in a private room and killed 59 people. With his right to have a military style weapon now shooters can commit these crimes from a large distance and not worry about the presence of anyone let alone officials with guns. Anderson does not seem to understand that you can’t fight guns with more guns. The shooters will find a way to commit these evil crimes no matter how many guns you give to people. The simple fact that Paddock was able to purchase his guns is the sole cause of this shooting, and no armed presence would have stopped him.

Depiction of the distance from Paddock’s room to concert venue

His last claim states that as citizens we have the right to bear arms in terms of self defense. It is important to keep our country safe and people should have the right to protect themselves if need be, but there are other ways. Protection from a dangerous situation does not have to result in death. First, there are various non-lethal weapons that can aid in self-defense but won’t result in death. Opposed to guns, people can own, pepper spray, Tasers, stun guns, self-defense alarms and whistles or even keychain weapons. All of these products can protect citizens without needing a gun. Conclusively, in terms of owning a gun for self-defense, it is not the only option. Secondly, there are instances in which people use a gun in “self-defense” when they are not required to which can result in an unnecessary and fatal accident. This brings me to the popular incident with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Zimmerman felt in danger and wished to protect his neighborhood from crime. He mistakenly viewed Martin as a threat to his safety and shot and killed him. Perhaps Zimmerman used a stun gun instead and waited for police to arrive, Martin would be alive today and Zimmerman’s neighborhood would remain safe. Guns are fatal and the actions committed behind a gun are irreversible.

Although Anderson does make various arguments against gun control, each argument has a refutation with clear evidence. The debate for or against gun control has been heated and passionate for years but it is important to look at facts rather than personal opinion. Anderson is admittedly passionate about guns for personal reasons such as hunting and sport therefore his arguments are not entirely valid.

Gun Violence: How The U.S. Compares With Other Countries

With all of the violence related to gun control that occurs in America, it is important to note how we compare to other countries in our world. In fact, according to the National Public Radio, the U.S. has the 31st highest rate of gun violence in the world. From this chart, we can see how we rank amongst the countries with the highest rates of gun violence. However, although we rank 31, with a rate of 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people, it is not something we should be proud of. Instead of being compared to countries such as the Bahamas and Jamaica, we should want to be compared to countries such as the UK and China, who both have rates under 0.10 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people.

Bipartisan Deal on Gun Control Unveiled

After recent events in Sutherland Springs, TX, there needs to be some sort of action taken in our country regarding gun violence. In fact, as of Thursday, November 16th, 2017, we can gladly say that something has been done. According to NBC News, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled legislation to improve background-checks for gun sales. Although
this action is rather narrow, it is a huge step in the right direction. This bill was drafted by Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, pictured above, and Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. According to Cornyn, “This bill aims to help fix what’s become a nationwide, systemic problem so we can better prevent criminals and domestic abusers from obtaining firearms”. Essentially, this bill was created by two Senators who are deeply impacted by this issue and will do everything in their power to fix it. This is what our country needs, more Senators like Cornyn and Murphy who want to get things done and improve the issue of gun control our country is facing.

Why We Don’t Need Gun Control-Refutation View

Gun control is a highly controversial topic. When discussing the opposing sides, either pro or anti, the conversation can become heated. While researching anti-gun control arguments to try and better understand that point of view, I stumbled across a blog written by Justin A Perry. He makes three main points that I would like to discuss within this post. His stance is clear, anti-gun control and he believes the legalization of guns will do nothing to create a safer and more civilized society.

The first point that he makes is, people cannot be deprived of gun rights because it aids their source of food and will decrease their quality of life. Although many people do hunt to kill animals for consumption, we are not an underdeveloped country in which this is the main source of survival. A study conducted by Responsive Management, shows that over 60% of hunters hunt for sport, bonding, trophy or nature as opposed to the approximate 30% of people who hunt for meat. Also, people who hunt for meat do not claim that this is there one and only source of survival and without it they would die. While many people enjoy freshly hunted meat, it is not a matter of life or death but rather preference.

His second argument claims that just because things are illegal, it doesn’t mean they cannot be obtained. He puts this into the perspective of drugs. Of course, LSD, Cocaine and Heroin are all illegal drugs but can unfortunately be found on the streets of the United States. He then draws the comparison that guns will be found on the streets even if they are illegal. I believe this argument is weak. The drugs he listed above are highly addictive after just one use. If they were legal we would have a much larger epidemic of drugs than we currently do. Making drugs illegal acts as a deterrent. Although it may be possible to find it on the streets, because it is banned, a large number of people abstain from using. This relates to guns as well. If a gun is legal, it is more likely to be used by every day people but once it becomes illegal it will deter the general public from purchasing it. Deterrence theory relates to three concepts, swiftness, severeness and certainty. If anti-gun laws are written clearly and there is strong enforcement of those laws, many citizens will become deterred. This will decrease the overall amount of people who physically own guns. Thus in turn, decreasing the potential for gun violence.

His third argument claims that, guns are not unsafe in households. The only way for a child to get into possession of a gun is by explicitly giving them access or teach them about the gun itself. This argument is extremely false. I recently watched a documentary called, Bully. It follows the lives of children who experience hardships at school. One girl, Ja’meye, was bullied so much that she found her mothers gun and brought it onto the school bus. She then attempted to shoot passengers but was luckily stopped in time. She now is in juvenile detention and will face most of her childhood behind bars. Her mother in the documentary claims she hid the gun and never spoke about the gun itself, where it was or how to operate it. This goes to show that Perry’s argument is not true. Just because we are not verbally teaching our kids about guns, their curious minds can get them into trouble. Children, in compromising situations, may turn to gun violence just like Ja’meye. The pure fact that her mother had that gun is what put Ja’meye behind bars and stripped her of her childhood. We are putting these weapons in front of our youth and presenting the opportunity to commit an act of violence.

Perry’s aggressive stance against gun control may excite others who agree with him but it is important to look at the facts of his arguments. With careful research and consideration it is clear that the anti-gun control claims are protecting a small group of people, those who enjoy guns, and harming the rest of the population. The presence of mass shootings and gun violence has gone too far. We need stricter laws relating to the ownership of guns.

We Don’t Need the 2nd Amendment — We Need a Real Debate About Guns

Unfortunately, every single time there is a tragic shooting in our country, anti gun control advocates resort to our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms as their most powerful tool in the debate against gun control. This article written by Timothy William Waters explains how the 2nd Amendment ends all discussion on the issue. He states that he heard an expert close a debate by shouting, “Too bad, it’s in the Constitution!” Through explanation and historical evidence, Waters explains that because of the serious disagreement about whether guns protect liberty or threaten it, Americans should be focusing on our responsibility to consider not just what the Constitution says, but what it should say regarding gun control. He claims that we do not need an amendment protecting or prohibiting guns, we just need the Constitution to be indifferent, so it allows for a proper debate in which the issues are truly spoken about, and not just our 2nd Amendment right.  Waters states, “There are good reasons to limit guns, and to have them. But the 2nd Amendment isn’t one of those reasons.”

Beware the Concern Trolls: The Nine Worst Arguments Against Gun Control

The gun control debate is filled with illogical support from anti gun control advocates. In an article published by Paste Magazine, written by Jacob Weindling, he discusses the nine worst arguments against gun control. Every time our country is mourning yet another mass murder is committed by a white man who has legally obtained a gun, this debate unfolds yet again. However, no progress is ever made in terms of gun control. About 90% of Americans support universal background checks, but that has yet to be enforced. According to Weindling, the main reason that no law enforcement is ever accomplished is because the 10% of Americans that are opposed to stricter gun control laws are way more committed to the cause than the rest of the country who support it. One of the most illogical arguments that Weindling mentions is an analogy of guns that are tools that can kill, compared to knives which are a tool that is not being banned. Anti- gun control advocates have yet to prove why gun restrictions will not work with concrete evidence. Their debate is always focused on our second Amendment right, and other arguments that do not seem viable to the debate issue, or the solution for our country.

A Mass Shooting in Texas and False Arguments Against Gun Control

In the light of recent events that occurred in Sutherland Spring, Texas, it is important now more than ever to discuss the topic of gun control. In particular I would like to discuss not just the topic of gun control, but the idea of hope when it pertains to these horrific events. Hope is a thing that can be looked at in a variety of ways, depending on a person’s outlook in life. For instance, when referring to one of the greatest movies of all time, Shawshank Redemption, the two main characters, Andy and Red, have different views on this idea of hope. On one hand, you have Red who states, “hope is a dangerous thing my friend, it can kill a man”. However, on the other hand, you have Andy stating, “Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies”. That is what I am arguing here today, that hope is good thing. Hope can be the best of things when it comes to dealing with events such as Texas or Las Vegas.

 

According to a recent article published in The New Yorker, “There is never a time to give away to hopelessness”. Adam Gopnik is able to use this concept of hope to express to his readers the importance of not giving up. He stresses the importance of always believing there is light at the end of the tunnel. In other words, Gopnik wants to assure his readers and anyone else for that matter that although we have seen numerous mass shootings over the past several years, each one helps us get closer to our end goal. Gopnik states, “with every public crisis, the truth matters and clarifies and brings light, even when the light can’t immediately show a better path forward”.

 

In addition, Gopnik goes more into depth regarding the difficulty of defeating the gun lobby. However, he proposes a series of myths that are used by the lobby to help its cause. These myths range from opinions such as if military style weapons are banned, there would be no effect to the science regarding gun violence being inconclusive. However, Gopnik uses this article to refute those opinions and affirm the beliefs regarding gun control in our nation. For instance, if military style weapons are banned, there would be an effect. It would act as a step forward and every step forward clears the way for more steps to be taken. In other words, the banning of these military style weapons would act as one step and would lead to other steps being taken to control gun violence. In terms of the social science being inconclusive, Gopnik argues against that particular opinion, stating, “The results are in. We really do know. Now we only have to do”. This is a central idea of Gopnik’s article.

 

This idea of ‘do’ is very relatable to the concept of hope. In fact, in my opinion, they work together. They build off one another. If a person is more hopeful that a particular issue will get resolved, they are going to be more active to help the process reach its end result. In other words, individuals, such as myself, who care about this issue of gun control and are hopeful about the future of our country, will do more things to make sure our current situation is improved. For instance, referring to a quote by the past President Barack Obama, “Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and to work for it, and to fight for it”. This is what more of our country needs to believe in. We need to spread the word that every individual should not just be hopeful about our nation’s future, but to take that hope and turn it into action.