Why are so many people uncomfortable with the idea that many problems don’t have a single solution? Give an example of a current controversy is which there are different factions arguing that theirs is the one right answer and explain why there is in reality no one right answer to the issue.
Since the invention of black powder, guns have been part of our society. Their main purpose is to defend people or their countries from being invaded by others. Guns are one of the major contributing factors that have helped win wars in our past history, providing us with the freedom most people take for granite. Just as technology has advanced through the years, so have firearms. This advancement has brought negative implementations though. Throughout the history of firearms, criminals have taken full advantage of using these weapons in their criminal activities. So the big question arises, should all people be banned from owning firearms? The answer to this question is obvious. No, law-biding citizens are the ones that should be allowed to own firearms. Owning firearms is an absolute right that our forefathers gave to us long ago. If firearms were taken away from all citizens in their entirety, our society would be in great danger. Not everyone should be able to own firearms through. Regulations need to be placed on owing these weapons, which leads us to the hardest question, how should guns be regulated?
Many regulations have already been placed on purchasing and owing firearms. For example; a person has to be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle, 21 years of age to purchase a handgun, anyone convicted of a felony, dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, unlawful users of certain narcotics, people convinced of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, and anyone that has given up their rights to be an American Citizen are not allowed to purchase or own firearms. (http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/firearm-laws) This list continues to go on with several other restrictions. I list these particular restrictions because they outline the different types of people we do not want to own firearms. The type of people I’m taking about are criminals, the exact type of citizens that should not have any rights whatsoever to firearms. Even with all these restrictions, there are still groups that would like to see firearms banned from our society in their entirety. There is absolutely no way possible to take firearms away from every citizen in America, nor should their be. The idea of banning firearms becomes an extremely controversial issue amongst people because there is no single solution to satisfy both parties. Certain groups want to see guns banned, while others such as the National Rifle Association want people to continue to have the right to bear arms. With the many restrictions already placed on owning and purchasing firearms, a rational person would think the problem has been address appropriately.
The main reason law-biding citizens should continue to have to right to own firearms is self-defense. You hear about people defending themselves and their families all the time in the news from criminals breaking into their homes. If these homeowners were not armed, the happy ending stories would not be the same. Statistics have shown countries that have outlawed home-defense weapons have higher home invasions. (http://www.a-human-right.com/homedefense.html) If firearms were to be are outlawed, criminals would no longer have that element of threat against them. In a free country like America, criminals have no way of knowing if homeowners are armed. That psychological element of threat plays a major role in deterring criminals from burglarizing people.
One might argue that people who own firearms are putting their children at risk. First of all, gun owners need to be responsible on how they store their weapons. This responsibility completely falls on the owner. If a child were to get a hold of a weapon, and that child causes bodily harm to themselves or another, the adult should be held accountable. But realistically this type of sanerio actually is a rare occurrence. According to the National Safety Council, the leading cause of accidental deaths in the US is medial errors. (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/deaths_by_firearm.htm) People by far have a greater chance of being accidentally killed by a doctor misreading a medial chart than from an accidental discharge from a firearm.
Hunting, target practice, and competitive shooting are more reasons law-biding citizens should continue to have the right to bear arms. Yes, accidents can and do happen during these events, but rarely occur. Athletic sports on the other hand cause major life alternating injuries quite regularly. You don’t see groups out there trying to ban these types of sports just because someone gets hurt. The public has come to accept that accidents are bound to occur playing sports. The same could be said for hunting, target practice, and competitive shooting. Shooting accidents just seem more dramatic because of the degree of injury involved with someone being shot.
Guns are not the primary cause of accidents in America. They can be extremely dangerous if they end up in the wrong hands. Law-biding citizens should continue to have the right to bears arms in America. The key term here is law-biding, which does not apply to everyone. Restrictions have already been placed on owning firearms to help prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. There will always be loopholes though. People who are anti-gun will always want to ban them despite the consequences of doing so. There is no single solution to this controversial issue to satisfy both sides. I think America has done a great job with the restrictions already in place with firearms.
No comments:
Post a Comment