Recently, I read a news article on ABC new about the new gun regulation. I admitted the legislation and execution was extremely difficult. However, I have to say that I do not support the new gun control. People might have different opinion on this topic. But here, let me demonstrate my points first and then you would have option to either agree or disagree with me.
As the president Barack Obama puts it, “I believe in American’s right to bear arms … the fact is, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible … but I am also betting that a vast majority of gun owners agree that we should keep a small few from owning a high-capacity weapon of war”. In other words, he believes that this could prevent the killings of the majority by the few who are ruffians or with a mental disorder. Though I concede that gun control bares a good purpose, I still insist that it would do more harm than good. From my point of view, gun control is not empirically effective, a violation of constitution and constrains the poor to revolt, which is not considered to be detrimental to society under a democratic system.
The new gun control, as designed by the executive branch of the government, prevents insane people or ruffians from getting licit killing weapons for illicit usage, such as murder or massacre. However, it does not thwart further casualties. As Salon reported, most murders and genocides are premeditated. Basically, this implies killers including insane killers plot his or her killing before it actually happens. They are able to acquire any kind of high-capacity weapon so long as the illicit weapon trading never ceases. As we all know, illicit weapon sale is prevalent all over America. Therefore, the true point of gun control should include putting an end to such a rapaciously illegal industry. Unfortunately, the regulations on legal gun sale or background checks would have little real effect upon campus killings and genocides, although these precautions would make the majority feel more comfortable and satisfied with the government’s performance.
As the poll by Langer Research Associates shows, gun control is supported by the majority of people because of their concerns for the safety of schools, malls, and other public situations. But, it nonetheless violates the second amendment of Constitution. This regulation indirectly reduces their ability in protesting, which is an imperative way for them to express their political opinions. Either in the past or today, the low class plays one of the most important roles. They rallied and tossed boxes of tea from the Eastern Indian Company into the sea; that embodied the beginning of independence war. Indeed, the war efforts by the rich were also enormous. But nonetheless, the poor had less of a difficult time emotionally breaking up with Britain, because the poor were the most directly targeted with severe taxation which was the highest among countries. The low class contributed to the war of independence no less than any other groups coming from different backgrounds. Therefore, the important position of the low class is undeniable. Nowadays, their share of the congress is not so equivalent to the portion of population they constitute, and thus they have to display to the government their opinion through protest that requires weapons for the safety themselves. Unfortunately, because of background check, they become less likely to be able to own guns compared to the rich because the poor are more likely to have a bad criminal record.
Barack Obama was right that shootings have caused too many casualties, but he seems on dubious ground about whether the regulation could really take effects. However, from a micro-view of each individual, guns must be provided for people who mostly need it for their own safety concerns. Unfortunately, the safety need cannot be reported and even prohibited through background checks. In contrast to the rich, the people who have committed a crime involved with the usage of gun inherits a need of buying guns after they are released from prison. Here is a dilemma in morality, when we use guns in street shootings, we use it to kill others, to protect ourselves or to do the both. However, people, who have bad records but try to become a better person, would definitely be killed if they do not have a gun. There are two premises under my theory. First, guns should not be banned totally. Second, the street boys, who I call “good boys”, would be less likely to buy guns because their inherent disgust toward the messy and dangerous lifestyle. As a result, the good boys who obey the law and own no weapons would be killed by the bad boys who have the same bad criminal records but own guns illegally. Therefore, I feel a strong disgust toward the new gun control because it does not solve the problem, instead it just changes the pattern of people who would be killed. However, my premises might be wrong. Therefore, people can challenge me upon this point.
Although I agree with Barack Obama up to a point that the gun killings should be reduced, I cannot accept his confidence that gun control will stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals. From my stand, I think gun control is useless, violates the second amendment of constitution, and only changes the pattern of people who are killed. However, whether gun control would take effects is still unknown to any one of us. Therefore, we can make new guesses depending on different perspectives. Also, in the spite of the violation of constitution, gun control enacted by the executive branch of government is legitimately workable. Finally, in the second to last paragraph, the premises under my argument could also be wrong. Therefore, I welcome everyone to argue with me.
Miles, Chris. “Obama Gun Control Speech: Key Quotes.” PolicyMic. 25.1 (2012): n. pag. Fri. 25 Jan. 2013.
Jacobs, Tom. “Mass shootings are actually bad for gun control advocates.” Saloncom RSS.
17.12 (2012): n.pag. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
Holyk, Gerg. “Majority Sees Obama’s Gun Control Plan Favorably.” ABC News. 24.11 (2013): n. pag. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.