I really did want to go to the event. Not because I support gun control, however. All across our nation people have protested for gun control. Just think about that for a second. People are protesting to have their own rights taken away. The rest of this entry will be the reasons on why gun control is stupid and completely useless and also why we even have the right to bear arms. All of my statistics come from the FBI crime center or other reliable sources.
The first point that I want to touch on is the fact that guns do not kill people. A gun can physically not sprout legs and decide to kill someone. Also, a guns main function is not to only kill people. Often, a gun can be used to intimidate an aggressor to prevent an altercation from even happening in the first place. It is only logical to assume that if a possible defender has a gun, then a possible aggressor will hesitate because of the fact that he/she may be shot at after he initiates. But the world is not logical. Often there are people who just try to kill as many people as they can. They don't care about dying or being shot. Even in this situation, there are pro-gun alternatives to just banning "assault rifles" or other "scary" weapons. There are two main perfect examples of this. The first one being the church massacre in Texas. An atheist decided to kill as many Christians as possible at the First Baptist Sutherland Springs Church. There were 27 deaths in total. There would have certainly been more if it not had been for the NRA instructor that shot the gunman twice and promptly killed him after a car chase. Another example happened just recently. In Maryland, a student that illegally acquired a firearm (the legal age to carry a gun in Maryland is 21) shot two people in the hallway of his school. He was about to continue, but an armed officer promptly shot and killed the student before anymore harm could be done. And guess what, only one of these incidents was reported on the main stream media.
The second point that I want to address is that there is a very good reason on why we even have the second amendment. Our very own nation wouldn't even be here if the colonists did not have the right to bear arms. Our government was born by the fact that we were the rebels that fought against tyranny. In fact, our own founding father in the Declaration of Independence stated that it was the citizens duty to overthrow a tyrannical government using any means necessary. This is why our founding fathers created the second amendment. To create a back door to overthrow a government that may one day turn tyrannical. If we do not have guns, then we can not effectively do this.
The third and last point that I would like to touch on is the fact that the term "assault rifle" is often used incorrectly to push a political agenda that does not even make sense. The actual definition is "an automatic rifle designed for infantry use". This means that the gun actually has to be an automatic firearm. An automatic firearm can only be owned by a civilian once they have filed permits with the ATF, have gun through extensive background checks, and the gun must be made before 1986. All of the regulations make is practically impossible to own an automatic firearm. All of these assault weapons bans are not actually banning assault weapons. They are really just banning semi-automatic rifles that look scary.
I hope that anyone who reads this will finally understand why gun control will not work in America. Our country is built on a foundation that embraces guns as a means to protect our freedoms. As far as I know, we are the only country that does this without a license. There have been multiple examples of how taking away guns from ordinary citizens causes horrible tragedies. One of these is Nazi Germany. Hitler declared that any Jewish person can no longer carry a firearm. He then went on to kill more than 8 million innocent Jewish people. 8 million. That militia would have been larger than our current military, China's military, and India's military combined. And with that, I will close and be open to opposing arguments as long as they are civil and reasonable.
The first point that I want to touch on is the fact that guns do not kill people. A gun can physically not sprout legs and decide to kill someone. Also, a guns main function is not to only kill people. Often, a gun can be used to intimidate an aggressor to prevent an altercation from even happening in the first place. It is only logical to assume that if a possible defender has a gun, then a possible aggressor will hesitate because of the fact that he/she may be shot at after he initiates. But the world is not logical. Often there are people who just try to kill as many people as they can. They don't care about dying or being shot. Even in this situation, there are pro-gun alternatives to just banning "assault rifles" or other "scary" weapons. There are two main perfect examples of this. The first one being the church massacre in Texas. An atheist decided to kill as many Christians as possible at the First Baptist Sutherland Springs Church. There were 27 deaths in total. There would have certainly been more if it not had been for the NRA instructor that shot the gunman twice and promptly killed him after a car chase. Another example happened just recently. In Maryland, a student that illegally acquired a firearm (the legal age to carry a gun in Maryland is 21) shot two people in the hallway of his school. He was about to continue, but an armed officer promptly shot and killed the student before anymore harm could be done. And guess what, only one of these incidents was reported on the main stream media.
The second point that I want to address is that there is a very good reason on why we even have the second amendment. Our very own nation wouldn't even be here if the colonists did not have the right to bear arms. Our government was born by the fact that we were the rebels that fought against tyranny. In fact, our own founding father in the Declaration of Independence stated that it was the citizens duty to overthrow a tyrannical government using any means necessary. This is why our founding fathers created the second amendment. To create a back door to overthrow a government that may one day turn tyrannical. If we do not have guns, then we can not effectively do this.
The third and last point that I would like to touch on is the fact that the term "assault rifle" is often used incorrectly to push a political agenda that does not even make sense. The actual definition is "an automatic rifle designed for infantry use". This means that the gun actually has to be an automatic firearm. An automatic firearm can only be owned by a civilian once they have filed permits with the ATF, have gun through extensive background checks, and the gun must be made before 1986. All of the regulations make is practically impossible to own an automatic firearm. All of these assault weapons bans are not actually banning assault weapons. They are really just banning semi-automatic rifles that look scary.
I hope that anyone who reads this will finally understand why gun control will not work in America. Our country is built on a foundation that embraces guns as a means to protect our freedoms. As far as I know, we are the only country that does this without a license. There have been multiple examples of how taking away guns from ordinary citizens causes horrible tragedies. One of these is Nazi Germany. Hitler declared that any Jewish person can no longer carry a firearm. He then went on to kill more than 8 million innocent Jewish people. 8 million. That militia would have been larger than our current military, China's military, and India's military combined. And with that, I will close and be open to opposing arguments as long as they are civil and reasonable.
Even though I dont agree with your opinions, I think that this post was very well developed and researched. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into this.
ReplyDeleteWe come from the same standpoint, Matthew, so I think that this is an excellent post. Even if I didn't agree, this post is definitely of high quality and it expresses explicitly large amounts of effort and research. You could polish this up, include a Works Cited, and then submit this to a writing competition and I think you could do extremely well! Amazing post dude, keep up the work.
ReplyDeleteI will definitely consider polishing this up. I completely forgot to insert the main statistics, however. Every single time we see "30,000" gun deaths perpetrated by a bad guy with gun, it doesn't account for the fact that 2/3 of those are suicides. People also talk about banning "assault weapons" (not rifles). This is even more ridiculous because they forget to mention the fact that death by any rifle (not just assault rifles) accounts for only 2% of 10,000 (the other 1/3 of the gun deaths). So take that mere 200 gun deaths, and compare that to 330 million people, 40% of which have guns. Most gun crimes are actually done with pistols, and we actually see this in the 3rd most deadly mass shooting. It was done at Virginia Tech, and a guy killed over 30 people with just 2 hand guns. Also, it was stopped by another gun.
DeleteWhat I mentioned above doesn't even account for how many lives guns save. The FBI estimates that 500,000 to 3 million lives are saved each year from firearms. The firearm doesn't even have to be used to save a life. Just the mere known possession of a weapon of the defender can deter an attacker from ever even attacking. Its called logic.
It's interesting you decided to go above and beyond for a blog post to this extent. I have very different opinions but it's nice to know you're at least up for a friendly debate!
DeleteThis could be very convincing argument with some collaboration from different people. You could include things like: What if I told you everyday at least twice a day you got in a 4000 pound metal box containing highly flammable and explosive chemicals and traveled at speeds of up to 75 miles per hour. This is otherwise known as your morning and afternoon commutes anything can be scary with a little bit of word manipulation and that is exactly what the media has done. They have taken a problem mass shootings are a problem but they are not one that needs to result in the repeal of one of our nations founding principles.
ReplyDeleteI dare say that prosecution could take place against the MSM as clearly shown in the Schenck v. United States case. But what do I know, I just read the actual constitution and know actual facts.
DeleteOk, I read this. Fine. We'll discuss this in class. You do make some ok points.
ReplyDeleteAll of the points that you provided in class have so far not been backed up by numbers.
DeleteIt is very nice you are passionate about this subject and chose to go above and beyond the requirements. I think that you did a nice job of at least trying to give some insight on the other side of views. Good Job!
DeleteThis post is very well developed with strong and valid arguments. I'm happy that someone who shares the same viewpoints as I do has started a conversation about this topic that is currently tearing people apart and is a huge issue. I hope to see a finished version soon!
ReplyDelete