Gun Control Laws

Alright. Surprise, surprise there’s been another mass-shooting in the United States. In California this time. Unless the United does something, we can expect to hear of another shooting around February/March next year. This one was carried out, as we understand it at the moment, a disgruntled employee. 14 people were killed and, as it stands as of writing this, another 21 people have been wounded, making this the worst mass-shooting since Sandy Hook.

President Obama will again attempt to get Gun Control laws passed and again they will fail because the NRA shouts out 2^nd Amendment “the right to keep and bear Arms”. Let’s have a look at what the 2^nd Amendment actually says:

“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”

Now, the first three words of the Amendment tell you Americans that your own forefathers supported Gun Control. “A well-regulated Militia”. What America currently has is not well-regulated and it is not a Militia. Your forefathers wanted you to have guns and wanted to prevent the Government from taking them off you, that is correct. But they also wanted to have regulations on what kinds of guns that you could own. And let’s not forget that this was written during the time the British were still holding parts of the newly formed United States of America making it extremely outdated by around 239 years.

The Amendment gives you the right to help defend your country from foreign invaders (and no, Refugees are not considered to be foreign invaders), however, it does not give you the right to go and shoot up your workplace because your boss pissed you off. It does not give you the right to shoot up your school because a girl rejected you. It does not give you the right to shoot your neighbour dead because their dog was barking at 6 AM on a Sunday morning.

A little fun fact for you Americans: the USA is the only 1^st World country to have mass-shootings. Russia doesn’t have mass-shootings, the UK doesn’t have mass-shootings, Australia and New Zealand don’t have mass-shootings. Three of those four countries have gun bans or very strict gun ownership laws. The fourth has no gun ownership laws other than being a legal adult at the time of purchase and an extensive background check.

“More guns will make us safer because it will allow us to defend ourselves”. America has the most guns per capita of any country in the world and it also has the most mass-shootings per capita of any country in the world. That is not opinion, that is hard data. And what that says to me is that arming everyone to their teeth with guns is not the answer.

Another commonly used reason by the NRA is that “Gun Control takes guns away from law-abiding citizens making them vulnerable to criminals” and my personal favourite “the law doesn’t apply to criminals”. Now, to be fair to the NRA, these reasons do have some basis in fact and not the fairy tale they construct in their heads. Laws do not stop criminals from doing illegal actions and Gun Control would restrict the sale of certain weapons. However if we did things based on “Laws don’t apply to criminals” then why do we have Drug Laws? Traffic Laws? Tax Laws. You break any law and you are considered to be a criminal. Meth is illegal in the United States, but that doesn’t mean that someone can’t get their hands on Meth if they really want it, but Drug Laws still exist to protect the public. It’s illegal to run Red Lights but every year millions of people do just that, yet Traffic Laws still exist. And if anyone says they’ve never lied on their tax forms I’d be calling them a liar because it is estimated that around a billion people globally lie when it comes to doing their tax. That’s around half of the global workforce, yet Tax Laws still exist. So the idea that Gun Laws shouldn’t be around because they won’t do anything is stupid. Gun Control laws might not do anything to stop criminals, but criminals have not been the ones conducting these mass-shootings. Lunatics or people who are blinded by rage in the heat of the moment are the ones doing it. Taking guns out of their hands would save potentially tens of thousands of lives in the long run.

You want a gun for self-defence? Fine. A Shotgun at most is all you need. You don’t need an AK-47 or an M16 Assault Riffle for self-defence. Not to mention they are military standard weapons.

A lesser used reason used by Gun Control opposition is that if the American military falls, the only people left to defend the country will be the civilians themselves. In theory, it sounds good, but you don’t have to think about it too much to see it fall apart. The American military is one of the most powerful militaries in the world. If a force is strong enough to take out the military, I’d very seriously question if there’s anything that a group of loosely led civilians, regardless of how large they are, would be able to do to stop it. The force that was strong enough to defeat the United States would likely have access to Nuclear Weapons, meaning that the civilian “army” (using the term very loosely) might not even get off a shot before being defeated themselves.

There will be tears shed and a lot of anger over the next few weeks, but we all know what will happen: Gun Control laws will be rejected again and we’ll be having the same conversation again early next year. My question to you Americans, is what will it take for you to value the lives of innocent people over your own personal freedoms? What will it take for you to see that giving up your guns is the only way to prevent these mass-shootings? 

******
Ok, I'm not sure why three quarters of the post is highlighted. You'll have to put up with it for now.
Don't forget to check out the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Controversialism/ because I post there when I put up another post here.