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.

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.

Guns are the Problem- An Affirmative View

After years of debate, gun control advocates have said that they are ready to take more aggressive action in trying to enforce stricter gun laws. The article, ‘Guns are the Problem’, discusses the activism behind pro-gun control groups. After the shooting in Las Vegas, activist groups have been becoming more vocal in the hopes that their messages will be heard. Following the investigation of Stephen Paddock, the perpetrator of the Las Vegas shooting, it was found that he had no serious criminal record and the local gun store claims he passed all background checks before purchasing the guns.

Even though background checks are required under current federal laws, the fact that Paddock passed is alarming. This proves that people with criminal motives can still purchase guns.  The background checks are not sufficient and are clearly ineffective in preventing crime. If we cannot control who obtains guns, it’s clear that the over distribution of guns is the problem. The founder of Guns Down, Igor Volsky, does not want to tread lightly on the topic anymore. He believes gun registration, licensing, and bans are vital to keeping our country safe.

As a Pro-Gun Control blog, we agree with Volsky’s point of view on gun licensing and bans. Military style weapons that have the power to kill hundreds of people in minutes is not an acceptable device to have on our streets. Of course, as citizen of the United States, we have the right to bear arms in cases of protection but owning a semi-automatic weapon should not be protected under our Constitution. When the sale of guns is used for harm, we must revoke or rewrite the 2nd Amendment. Let’s put it into perspective… If Stephen Paddock was only able to purchase a handgun, not any military style weapon, there would be astronomically less damage done by him. It is a fact that without that gun, he would not have been able to do what he did. It makes me wonder, did he kill all of those people, or did the gun?

As the article comes to an end, it talks about gun violence as an analogy to motor-vehicle fatalities. Cars present a danger to society as nearly 1.3 million people die from car related crashes each year. At no point did people try to ban cars, but rather make cars safer. We felt this was an insightful way to end this article. The author did not offer and unrealistic or radical claim that guns will be abolished but rather offered a unique take on the topic. In the United States, it would be hard to completely rid the nation of all guns immediately, but for now we can push for more regulations and safer devices.

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them- An Affirmative View

For years, people have been expressing their view on gun control whether it be for or against. Similar to our blog, this New Republic article argues for more gun control in our country. This article was written after the San Bernardino mass shooting which led to 16 deaths and 24 non-fatal injuries. The stance of this pro-gun control argument is quite radical. It calls for the ban of all guns and not just certain types of guns being distributed to certain types of people. It is unethical to choose the people we believe will produce harm with a gun. The author exclaims that we cannot decide who we think should and should not own a gun but rather ban them all. There are two main arguments that coincide with the author’s beliefs on gun control. First, the interpretation of the second amendment is subject to change and second, the idea that an anti-gun position is racist.

The first argument in regards to the second amendment, refers to the notion that the world is an ever-changing place. The way in which we interpreted this argument was simple. The constitution and the amendments within have been around for hundreds of years. The way inwhich the world functioned in 1791, when the 2nd amendment was ratified, is very different from the world we live in today. It is clear that laws can and should be interpreted differently over the course of history. With our changing lives, the laws in which we abide by should adapt and grow as we as a country do as well. So, although the we had the right to bear arms in 1791, is it safe to have the right today? Maybe not.

The second argument is a little more complex. It discusses the idea of being antior pro gun control in a cultural sense. Those who were raised in households or communities that did not support guns or gun ownership, tend to “look down” upon those own guns. We interpreted this as, you either grew up around guns oryou did not and depending on your upbringing, you will join the anti or pro side of gun control. Although there may be different levels of acceptance for guns in certain areas of the country it does not change the fact that people still physically own guns. Whether it is “culturally accepted” or not, people still have the power to shoot or harm themselves or others at any moment they desire, simply because they own a gun. A majority of mass shootings are committed by weapons that were obtained legally and by persons who had experience with guns before the time of the shooting. Maybe the “over-acceptance” of guns can make a person more susceptible to committing a crime such as a mass shooting. This shows how a positive culture around guns can potentially have a negative impact on the country.

There are many arguments in favor of gun control but this article defined the basic reasons why people should not own guns. One, the law is outdated and two, people can be hurt or killed from a gun. It is that simple. We cannot experience more death and despair from armed men and women throughout this country. This article was written in 2015 and since then there have been hundreds of shootings leading to death or injury.