Gun Control
(Types of evidence)
By Abril Montserrat Vázquez Díaz
Monday 16, January 2017
Gun control is the set of laws or
policies that regulate the manufacture, sale transfer, possession, modification
or use of firearms by civilians. I respect the American constitution and I know
that citizens from the USA have the right to have guns. But I, personally don´t
agree with that. I don´t think “gun violence” is in any circumstance the
solution for peace and safety. In this essay I´ll present with facts and
evidence the cause of my opinion.
 |
| Malala |
"With guns you can kill terrorists,
with education you can kill terrorism" by Malala
Now, talking about the United States of
America, they have their Second Amendment, which protects the right of the
people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as a
part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of rights. The Second
Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English
common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting
the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, repelling invasion,
enabling the people to organize a militia system and the civic duty to act in
concert in defense of the state.
Some arguments from people who want to
keep the right of having guns are:
-Because of personal preferences (they
like having them)
-Protection
Now that we know what “gun control”
consists in and what are the principal arguments against restricting guns, I
will use the different types of evidence needed to defend my position.
Arguments based on evidence:
It is proven that you´re 80% more
likely to use that gun on yourself, than to shoot someone else. But some people
say that the main reason to have a gun is for protection, not for kill
themselves; “that´s just for crazy people with mental issues”. Let´s say that´s
true. I´ll give you an example “If you have it readily available, it becomes
unsafe. If you have it in your bedside table, one of your kids picks it up,
thinks it´s a toy, and shoots someone. But some people say that would never
happen in their house, because they are “responsible gun owners”. Their
solution is keeping them locked in a safe. Well then, they´re not protection.
Because if someone breaks into your house, you have no time to go to the safe
and get the gun out, by the time you get the arm out they probably already
shoot you or something like that.
“Assault rifles” interesting
name for a gun you want to use for protection. No purpose other than to kill
large numbers of people. That´s the function of the assault rifles. If you just want to protect your
family, why would you need that?” - Jim Jefferies (australian comedian)
For every time a gun is used
in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide
attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. An intruder
will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum
will probably get angry and kill you. So it´s not necessary to use a gun if you
have less violent and simpler ways to protect yourself. Besides, the trauma
caused by killing someone is something that stays in your mind forever. It´s
not healthy.
What about the myth “guns
make women safer”? In 2013, more than 5
times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than
murdered by male strangers. Also, a woman's chances of being killed by her
abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
In discussing
Orlando, Donald Trump, in that time, the presumptive Republican nominee, mused, “If you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t
have had the tragedy that you had.” It was a clear homage to the NRA’s mantra that the “only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is
a good guy with a gun.” But my question is ¿How would you know the person
you´re selling the gun is good or bad? My answer to that is: there´s no exact
way to know that. The solution would be not selling guns to anybody.
After Sandy Hook
massacre happened, the NRA said, and I quote: “None of this would happened if
teachers had guns”. They said: “We´ll put an armed security guard at every
school across America”. “The presence of armed security
personnel adds a layer of security and diminishes response time” in a shooting,
Mr. Hutchinson said, a former Republican congressman from Arkansas. The
recommendations — which also included expanding the police presence in schools
— drew immediate criticism from gun control advocates and many Democrats, who
have been fighting to tighten gun restrictions after the massacre at Sandy Hook
Elementary School in Newtown, in December.
Having armed guards won´t benefit the
kids safety at all, according to The
Huffington Post. There are some reasons to doubt putting armed guards in
schools is a good idea:
-Armed guard are not likely to prevent all attacks:
At the Columbine
and Virginia Tech school shootings, there were armed
guards, but they weren’t able to prevent those tragedies. Remember: The shooter
will pick the time and place of attack, and would surely attempt to avoid
striking when (and the specific locations where) armed guards are patrolling.
-Even if Armed Guards Are Present in All Schools and
Completely Effective, the Cure Might be Worse than the Disease:
The U.S. has about 100,000
schools, so we’re discussing on the order of 150,000 armed guards
(some schools would be large enough to warrant several guards), for 75 million
students, about 200 days a year. There would be lots of
opportunities for deadly incidents: Armed guards misreading student behavior
(e.g., a student mistakenly shot while playing with a toy gun); Student fights
where a student grabs the guard’s gun; A mass shooting scenario where students
are killed in crossfire; or, a nightmare scenario where a psychotic guard
massacres students.
-
Our Children Are Priceless, But There Are More Efficient Ways to Save Young
Lives: In round numbers, 150,000 guards at a cost of $100,000/guard (that’s
fully loaded costs, including benefits, costs of training and whatever
management infrastructure is needed) would require $15 billion/year. Assuming
the armed guards are completely effective and we have no guard-related
incidents, based on past trends we’ll save about 10 young lives per year, at a
cost of $1.5 billion/life. (As a side point, schools are one of the safest
places for children. For ages 5-18, about 20 students
total are killed in schools each year, out of a total of 55 million
students in this age group.)
Consider that about 4,600 young
people (between the ages of 10 and 24) commit suicide in the
U.S. each year, and about 2,000 of
these suicides involve firearms. Another 5,000
young people (again, between the ages of 10 and 24) are murdered, and (as noted
above) very few of these murders happen in schools. And don’t forget the 1,700
young people (between the ages of 0 and 17) who die each year from neglect or
abuse (80 percent of
these are under 4 years of age). It doesn’t take a major leap of faith to
believe that investing $15 billion in comprehensive youth suicide, murder and
neglect prevention programs (instead of armed guards) would save hundreds of
young lives instead of about 10 lives per year.
The one thing that I do really agree
with the right to bear arms, is that the real reason it was written was so that
you could form a militia to fight against a tyrannical government. In case the
government became a tyranny, or foreign invasion, Americans could get their
guns and fight back, and that´s why it was written. And that made sense when it
was just muskets. Because let´s remember that the Second Amendment was made in
1791. But nowadays, the government has drones. It´s pointless to fight with guns
against drones or bombs. It does not apply to us in the 21st
century.
One of the best arguments that people
who support having guns is: “if you take the guns away, then only the criminals
will have guns”. When they banned the guns in Australia, it worked. When they
banned them in Britain, it worked too. The Bushmaster gun that the kid was going
to use in Sandy Hook costs, like $1,000 American dollars and you can buy it in
Walmart. It´ll be delivered to your house and that´s it. That same gun in Australia on the black
market costs $34, 000 dollars. If you have 34 thousand dollars, you don´t need
to be a criminal and you probably don´t need a gun. That covers the criminals’
argument.
Another thing, the kid at Colorado
who thought he was the joker and the kid at Sandy hook, both of them had mental
and social issues. In the black market it´s not that easy to just get in and
ask for guns. And even less if that’s your mental situation.
Some people say: “Well if a criminal was
hard enough they will find a weapon anyway!” Consider this, if a psychotic
shooter saw an XM-15 Bushmaster sitting on his table, the intimidation and
motivation would continue unabated. However, if such weapons were banned,
motivation will dwindle (diminish) as the perpetrator would need to go through
many black market and illegal places, which are maybe unreachable due to their
lack of knowledge, as I said before.
For instance, you don't try to throw
more water into a flooded basement in hope that the added water will defend the
furniture. Guns are responsible for over 31,000 deaths in America. Studies
show, according to the Week Magazine, that there are more cases in which people
are killed by guns than saved by civilians with guns. More studies prove that
when you have more gun laws that there will be less crime.
I perfectly understand that Americans
have the right to have their guns because their constitution allows it. So what
I would like to propose is to really analyze and study what are the pros and
cons, to really think about what our choices and beliefs are built with. Its
fundamental to realize that it´s not about who owns or who uses the weapon, but
about the fact that it is allowed and everyone has within reach that
threatening and violent power. If it has worked in other countries, why
wouldn´t it in USA? Are we really so selfish and ignorant? And it´s not about
culture, it´s about being a human and really think of what´s best for the
country. It´s time to educate and raise awareness of new generations. It is possible,
and we can all support the idea of less violence and more unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment