I've heard both sides, the far right and the far left. Honestly, I don't think either side can truly prove they're right (as in correct).
I read an article not too long ago stating that gun control makes things easier on thieves and rapists. I've also read that gun control is just a way to strip us of our rights, so the government can take total control.
On the far right, it seems they believe if everyone owned a gun, we'd all be safer, because we'd all be able to protect ourselves. On the far left, it appears they believe if no one owned a gun, we'd all be safer, because there would be no threat of a gun.
Both sides have a point, but there's no way to truly identify a clear winner in this debate. One reason is the fact that not everyone owns a gun, to counter the right's side. Another reason is the fact that even if guns were made illegal (like alcohol had been), guns would still be traveling along the underground and find its way on the streets, to counter the left's argument.
It also depends upon who has a gun to "protect" themselves. If a person was being robbed and they had a gun, then perhaps the right is on to something. However, if the robber has a gun, then it'd be the person they were robbing whom would be a potential victim of gun violence, and in this case, the left would be on to something.
Now, if I had a choice between every human being having a gun or no one having the opportunity to own a gun, I'd feel safer with no guns, but that would be me just being naive, because as I mentioned, no matter how much gun control we have, there is no way to completely prevent guns from being manufactured and sold.
So, for now, I think the compromise is what is termed gun control. Some politicians may try to go too far with this and in these cases, the conservatives might be accurate in stating that some people are attempting to take away our rights, because as it states in the 2nd amendment, we have the right to bare arms. But, some gun control laws make sense to me. If an individual has a record of driving recklessly, DUI's, amongst other traffic-related incidents, he or she may lose their right to drive their automobile for a certain period of time. If an individual has a history of gun violence and crime, shouldn't that person lose their right to own a gun? So, background checks make sense. Waiting a certain amount of time before selling a gun to the buyer makes sense. Certain violent crimes happen in the moment, so waiting a period of time before selling the weapon may allow the buyer some time to cool down and put things into perspective before doing something they'll forever regret.
This is a no win debate. Both sides present decent points that may be accurate in certain instances, but not in others. So, for now, I think certain gun control laws are the compromise, until someone comes up with a better idea.
I read an article not too long ago stating that gun control makes things easier on thieves and rapists. I've also read that gun control is just a way to strip us of our rights, so the government can take total control.
On the far right, it seems they believe if everyone owned a gun, we'd all be safer, because we'd all be able to protect ourselves. On the far left, it appears they believe if no one owned a gun, we'd all be safer, because there would be no threat of a gun.
Both sides have a point, but there's no way to truly identify a clear winner in this debate. One reason is the fact that not everyone owns a gun, to counter the right's side. Another reason is the fact that even if guns were made illegal (like alcohol had been), guns would still be traveling along the underground and find its way on the streets, to counter the left's argument.
It also depends upon who has a gun to "protect" themselves. If a person was being robbed and they had a gun, then perhaps the right is on to something. However, if the robber has a gun, then it'd be the person they were robbing whom would be a potential victim of gun violence, and in this case, the left would be on to something.
Now, if I had a choice between every human being having a gun or no one having the opportunity to own a gun, I'd feel safer with no guns, but that would be me just being naive, because as I mentioned, no matter how much gun control we have, there is no way to completely prevent guns from being manufactured and sold.
So, for now, I think the compromise is what is termed gun control. Some politicians may try to go too far with this and in these cases, the conservatives might be accurate in stating that some people are attempting to take away our rights, because as it states in the 2nd amendment, we have the right to bare arms. But, some gun control laws make sense to me. If an individual has a record of driving recklessly, DUI's, amongst other traffic-related incidents, he or she may lose their right to drive their automobile for a certain period of time. If an individual has a history of gun violence and crime, shouldn't that person lose their right to own a gun? So, background checks make sense. Waiting a certain amount of time before selling a gun to the buyer makes sense. Certain violent crimes happen in the moment, so waiting a period of time before selling the weapon may allow the buyer some time to cool down and put things into perspective before doing something they'll forever regret.
This is a no win debate. Both sides present decent points that may be accurate in certain instances, but not in others. So, for now, I think certain gun control laws are the compromise, until someone comes up with a better idea.
Comments
Post a Comment