Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Explaining both sides of the debate on gun control

To Society,
    The continued debate about gun control never seems to progress because both sides have valid concerns, but they are never addressed. The purpose of this letter is to identify these concerns so that we may be able to achieve progress.
    I encourage you to not think of these values as either conservative or liberal. These are values of people. There is some truth in all and there is stuff both sides need to do. I am only listing reasons I consider to have valid concerns inside. Reasons such as gangs want to use them to kill others are not valid.

In Opposition to "Gun Control"
  • The biggest concern that I see is the lack of trust in the government. These people have a right to not trust the government because the news shows evidence of that all the time. Politicians lie quite often, they can be fickle, they are always bribed with money, and they live in the capitals, not the rest of the country. The police is always in the news for being corrupted, why let them be the only ones with guns?
  • Even if you control the flow of guns within the country, if you don't secure the borders, then gangs from other countries will suddenly become too powerful. Again, people in capitals far from borders don't have this concern.
  • Gun control will only limit access to people who are good. Those who want to commit a crime will always bypass the law
  • Good people having guns deter gangs from attacking
  • In Brazil has shown that when gun control is active, the gangs are better equipped than the police (is this true?).
  • America is so independent focused that guns are needed to prevent violence. Japan is okay with gun control because they are more community focused.
  • People need a right to defend themselves in order to be independent. The same applies to nations like said in Lawrence of Arabia
  • News media even condemns police for using tasers
  • People having guns helps deter the government from not attacking its own citizens. Therefore the right to bear arms is a check and balance on the government who can become corrupt very quickly like Nazi Germany
    • People very opposed to gun control already consider America to be like Nazi Germany and therefore their guns are their only protection
  • Mass shootings can be stopped by someone having a gun to stop the shooter.

For "Gun Control"

  • Society has a right and obligation to defend its people, even from its own people.
  • Rights of one person cannot invalidate another person's rights
  • Society needs to prevent guns getting into the hands of sociopaths and those psychologically unstable
  • Guns need to be kept away from children who have no training and therefore cause many tragic deaths
  • Life is so sacred that even one death is tragic
  • Purses are not acceptable places to hide a gun as they are easily stolen
  • You cannot have both drinking and guns. 

I may not list as many on the Pro-gun control side, but they are equally balanced. Life is important and we need to let the government do its job in protecting everyone. At the same time, those against gun control have valid fears. The result is we need to impose some restrictions on guns, but not so that limits access to those who are good.

The Resolution and Compromise:
  • Anyone who wants to have a gun must receive training. Not knowing how to use a gun is incredibly dangerous
  • Anyone who wants to have a gun must go through some psychological examination. It is to solely focus on whether the person with a gun will only use it to defend, never attack. In this sense, even extreme patriotism can result in a negative.
  • Therefore, those likely to have a strong hatred for anyone or group of people cannot have a gun.
  • Anyone who even pretends to shoot someone they don't like, such as pointing a finger and saying "Bang!" to someone on the TV, should not have a gun.
  • People who own guns must have a value for life and that death should always be a last resort in defense. 
  • People who own guns must be subject to allowing local authorities to ensure they practice good safety standards. Examples include out of reach from children, not being loaded all the time, and safety on.
  • If anyone is likely to become drunk, then he cannot have access to a gun. Japanese are able to get drunk often because they don't have to fear gun violence as well as because they use trains.
  • Hand guns should be limited due to the increased security risks and ease of being stolen. Rifles, due to their heavy nature, are less likely to be stolen. Hand guns are also considered easy to use, which leads to a false sense of security
  • The police are to have the same psychology exams and the same restrictions. The only exception is the handgun limitation because they can be secured to a person.
  • News media should also focus on cops being good to show that most are actually pretty good people. This is to help alleviate the fear of the government
  • traffic cops should probably not have guns unless dispatched to a hostile situation.
  • Politicians must not accept any bribes or funding when discussing the bill.
  • Politicians must keep the Bill in a state that completely covers both sides of concerns I listed. Any other compromise is evil. The point is to promote love and not allow hatred to grow.
  • Guns cannot be allowed in any place where people will be drinking alcohol. Guns and Alcohol do not mix well
  • If an establishment serves alcohol, then it must have a gun storage system. Guns cannot be returned to people who are drunk
  • Everyone needs to know and agree to the Universal Moral Law. Otherwise we cannot trust them to handle a weapon
  • People must learn to control their anger. Those who become angry too quickly cannot be trusted to reason and act in good faith.
  • Gun stores cannot have their guns easily accessible
  • Gun shops cannot sell ammunition at the same time as a gun
  • Gun Shop owners need to pass a good exam as well to have a license to sell guns and regularly inspected. We cannot have gun shop owners who will bypass the laws for profit or other reasons
  • Gun shop owners cannot sell a gun to someone until they show a valid license.
  • Gun owners must register to a database which can help track if their licenses are valid or not to purchase guns.
Guns need to be controlled for the safety of the people, but also in a manner that respects the rights of people. These compromises I propose are reasonable because it requires those with dangerous weapons to be responsible and mature. This means if they hold their fears, they are valid fears and not excuses.

N. D. Moharo

P.S. My solution isn't going to be perfect and you can certainly argue for some points. However, there are certainly reasons behind each item I listed. Everything is how I believe we can secure both the rights of our citizens and our people.

No comments:

Post a Comment