In terms of national news, it has been a very sad couple of weeks when it comes to gun violence in this country. From former Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Javon Belcher shooting and killing his girlfriend before ending his own life to the mall shooting in Oregon to the elementary school shooting in Connecticut a couple days ago, it has been a very sad couple of weeks. Following each and every one of these tragedies, gun control advocates have been told, "Now's not the time to talk about gun control," while gun enthusiasts have simultaneously been attempting to defend gun rights and usage in this country - some going so far as to insinuate that guns are being unfairly scapegoated.
Of all the gun defenses I've heard or read about in recent days, two have to be my favorite. They are:
1) "Think criminals care about gun control? Regardless of the laws, they'll find a way to get a gun and kill as intended."
and
2) "Gun control laws won't eliminate gun crimes, just like drug laws didn't eliminate drug usage."
Why are these two defenses my favorites? Because these people feel like they've put forth a solid argument in both cases, but they're extremely weak and basically call for anarchy.
In a perfect world, laws would "eliminate" bad behavior, but this isn't a perfect world. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even need laws. Laws are implemented to maintain a certain amount of order and to decrease the chance of people being negatively impacted by criminal behavior. No, drug laws didn't "eliminate" drug usage in this country. However, they have made an impact. Due to the possible repercussions if caught with illegal substances, people are less likely to place themselves at risk by either taking or distributing illegal drugs. Stricter gun laws wouldn't completely "eliminate" gun crimes. However, it would likely make an impact, as it would become more difficult for people to follow through with their violent intentions. No law can guarantee absolute safety. No law will fully eliminate the chance a minority of people will violate said law and place themselves and/or others in harm's way. Realistically speaking, that's not what laws are there to do. Laws are in place to instill a sense of order and to decrease the chance of crime. Can I guarantee with absolute certainty that if stricter gun laws were in place, that the three tragedies I listed wouldn't have occurred over these past couple weeks? No, of course not. However, the percentage of chance or probability would likely have decreased in that scenario.
If we're going to say criminals will commit gun crimes regardless of the gun control measures, so there's no point to pass more gun control measures, why have any laws? Regardless of the speed limit signs and traffic lights, people are going to exceed the speed limit and run red lights, so what's the point of having any such laws? Regardless of laws on assault and battery, child abuse, and rape, there will be some whom break said laws, so what's the point of having them in place? Laws are in place to instill order and to decrease the chance of crime due to the potential consequences if caught. If there are no potential negative consequences for crime, we lose that sense of order and chaos would likely ensue. Stricter gun laws may not fully "eliminate" gun crimes in this country, but I'd much rather know that buying a potentially lethal device is taken very seriously, with every precaution being taken before selling the firearm, and knowing it will decrease the chance of a crime being committed with it, than to be more lax with gun regulation than selling Sudafed.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/10/1307701/nfl-guns/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting_n_2300831.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justice/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html
http://deadspin.com/5964841/reports-kansas-city-chiefs-lb-jovan-belcher-killed-his-girlfriend-drove-to-the-chiefs-practice-facility-and-killed-himself-[updating]
Of all the gun defenses I've heard or read about in recent days, two have to be my favorite. They are:
1) "Think criminals care about gun control? Regardless of the laws, they'll find a way to get a gun and kill as intended."
and
2) "Gun control laws won't eliminate gun crimes, just like drug laws didn't eliminate drug usage."
Why are these two defenses my favorites? Because these people feel like they've put forth a solid argument in both cases, but they're extremely weak and basically call for anarchy.
In a perfect world, laws would "eliminate" bad behavior, but this isn't a perfect world. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even need laws. Laws are implemented to maintain a certain amount of order and to decrease the chance of people being negatively impacted by criminal behavior. No, drug laws didn't "eliminate" drug usage in this country. However, they have made an impact. Due to the possible repercussions if caught with illegal substances, people are less likely to place themselves at risk by either taking or distributing illegal drugs. Stricter gun laws wouldn't completely "eliminate" gun crimes. However, it would likely make an impact, as it would become more difficult for people to follow through with their violent intentions. No law can guarantee absolute safety. No law will fully eliminate the chance a minority of people will violate said law and place themselves and/or others in harm's way. Realistically speaking, that's not what laws are there to do. Laws are in place to instill a sense of order and to decrease the chance of crime. Can I guarantee with absolute certainty that if stricter gun laws were in place, that the three tragedies I listed wouldn't have occurred over these past couple weeks? No, of course not. However, the percentage of chance or probability would likely have decreased in that scenario.
If we're going to say criminals will commit gun crimes regardless of the gun control measures, so there's no point to pass more gun control measures, why have any laws? Regardless of the speed limit signs and traffic lights, people are going to exceed the speed limit and run red lights, so what's the point of having any such laws? Regardless of laws on assault and battery, child abuse, and rape, there will be some whom break said laws, so what's the point of having them in place? Laws are in place to instill order and to decrease the chance of crime due to the potential consequences if caught. If there are no potential negative consequences for crime, we lose that sense of order and chaos would likely ensue. Stricter gun laws may not fully "eliminate" gun crimes in this country, but I'd much rather know that buying a potentially lethal device is taken very seriously, with every precaution being taken before selling the firearm, and knowing it will decrease the chance of a crime being committed with it, than to be more lax with gun regulation than selling Sudafed.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/10/1307701/nfl-guns/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting_n_2300831.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justice/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html
http://deadspin.com/5964841/reports-kansas-city-chiefs-lb-jovan-belcher-killed-his-girlfriend-drove-to-the-chiefs-practice-facility-and-killed-himself-[updating]
Comments
Post a Comment