In light of the recent Aurora and Sikh
Temple shooting, people have started to wonder if something should be done
about current gun control laws. The ultimate goal being to stop these terrible crimes
from occurring altogether; however, how to reach this goal has sparked some
major debate. An anonymous writer on 123HelpMe.com has taken steps to further
look into both sides of the argument to see if one comes out victorious over
the other. As I was reading, several quotes came to my attention.
The first quote that stuck out in my
mind was when the author was reviewing the second amendment of the constitution
dealing with the right to bear arms. "The Amendment is really saying two
things at once," the author states. He or she explains that the second amendment
may be interpreted differently in recent years. "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." The first part deals with the
maintaining of a national militia to protect the freedom of the country. The
second part states that it is the right of the people to bear arms, not the
army; however, isn't the army made up of people? If there wasn't any people, we
wouldn't have an army.
When the author went into detail as
to how the Amendment is saying two different things at once, it made me stop
and think which way the correct interpretation was. I had never noticed that
the Amendment protects the right of people and the militia all in one. However,
the United States no longer has a true militia. I wondered if the Amendment
would read any differently if our government were to rewrite it to fit current
times.
"This is true, but it has been
proven that it is kids that are around guns that are actually safer than those
who aren't," this is the second quote that came to my attention as I was
reading. The idea behind adding this bit of information into the essay was to
add a concrete fact to support the anti gun control argument.
Although this fact or statement may
be convincing, once I did further investigation as to where the author pulled
this bit of information from, I actually found that it was from the NRA
website. The only reason this quote came to my attention was because I found it
hard to believe. I understand that it is a great counter argument, but I found
from better sources (i.e. my mother) that the three leading causes of death in
teenagers is drunk driving, suicide, and homicide. I know for a fact that you
need a weapon of some sort 90% of the time for the last two causes. If the
government repeals all gun control laws then we might see a significant
increase in the last two causes of death in teenagers. Don't get me wrong, it
makes a great counter argument, but I just don't think it is a very concrete
fact.
The last quote I could completely agree with when it comes
to this topic. "That is why it is better to teach people to use firearms
properly; this will prevent accidents from happening..." The essay goes on
to state even more evidence of countries who have trained a large percentage of
the population on how to handle fire arms, and in return the country saw a
significant drop in crime rate. I thought this quote was the most compelling
quote in the whole essay, and I feel it may be the answer to our problems. More
research may have to be done to make sure that it truly works, but it is defiantly
a step in the right direction.
