By: Elizabeth Wiesman
In President Obama’s State of the
Union speech he stated that, “Gabby Giffords deserves a vote, the families of
Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora…Oak Creek, Tuscon, and
Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun
violence—they deserve a vote.” They do deserve a vote but what about everyone
else. It seems as though the only people who get votes are those who were
negatively impacted by gun related tragedies. What about everyone who will be
negatively impacted by the gun control laws? Don’t we deserve a vote? In the
article President Obama targets new gun
control laws in State of Union speech written by Joseph Straw and Dan
Friedman, found here,
it says that in attendance to the speech, was dozens of victims and relatives
of victims of gun violence. Nowhere does it say that anyone to represent the
opposing side were in attendance.
Obama forgets that there are
legitimate and important reasons why citizens own guns. We own guns to protect
our families and to provide for our families. There are people who collect guns
from history. Obama should not forget that guns protect him and protect his
family. If he wants to put a ban on guns or strictly control them, then his
Secret Service must do the same. We cannot make an exception simply because his
is important, what kind of message would that send? President Obama is right to
think about the victims of gun related violence, but he is wrong to neglect the
other side. Taking away guns rights isn’t going to stop someone who really
wants to commit murder or a mass murder. It just means that that person is
going to find another way to do it or to find a gun on the black market.
The prohibition has shown us that
putting a ban on something “dangerous” doesn’t stop people from purchasing it
and using it. It just makes it all the more dangerous because it isn’t
regulated. Taking away gun rights takes away the chance to be rightly taught
how to use and handle a gun. So the people who are going to get a hold of guns
aren’t going to be trained in gun safety, making them all the more dangerous. Having
a ban on guns isn’t going to stop gun violence; it’s just going to make it more
dangerous.
I come from
a family where every house has at least five guns. They are properly licensed
and legal. Everyone knows where they are, in a locked cabinet for safe keeping
until hunting season. Every male in my family has taken a hunter’s/gun safety
course, they clean their guns after use and always make sure that it is
properly handled. I plan to take hunter’s/gun safety course sometime in the
near future. I also plan to have my own gun when I have my own house. I want
that safety feature. I want to know how to use a gun if or when it might be
needed. The gun control/ban upsets me. If my right to feel safe in my own home
can be taken away, then President Obama’s right to feel safe in his home should
be taken away. There is no sense in the gun control ban because “gun don’t kill
people, people kill people.”
This is a great point that you have brought up, because yes, these people do deserve a voice in this debate over guns, but it does not only affect them. Whether it is best for the country or not, they will certainly have a biased opinion against guns because of their extreme experiences with it. They should not be the only ones with a vote in the situation because it is not the job of a minority group to decide what is best for the majority. If the majority decides that more gun controls and regulations are best, then we should proceed forward doing so, but -- as in all election processes and law making -- if the majority is opposed to increased gun laws, we cannot change the process of law making for the minority group.
ReplyDeleteIn politics voice is everything but unlike the classroom were your heard by volume in the political system your heard by how much money you have. I agree will Kate and say that they should not be the only voice heard.thinking that a small rock will break a big rock in this situation is not ideal. having the majority decide for the majority is prime.
ReplyDeleteRobert Blask
Taking away peoples rights isn't going to help America. Sometimes we just need to learn to stop being so sensitive and realize there are fights that we aren't prepared to battle. Guns level the playing field, a 300 pound 6'7 male vs. a 130 pound 5'5 female, who's going to win? Unless the woman has a gun. Everybody abuses their rights, but that doesn't mean you should take the right away from everybody. Mass murders happen, it's sad- but we have to move on. We can't prevent every horrible act and by trying we are only worsening the problem by inciting anger in society. Just leave the guns alone and leave my rights where they belong, that's all I'm saying. But in short- I agree with you lol.
ReplyDeletePeople only focus on everything that can go wrong with guns, and not the benefits of owning one. Should it be harder to get guns, yes, maybe some sort of psychological test and certain intervals of time and routine check-ups but nothing major. But there are people out there who do know how to use guns and who do use guns properly, not every gun owner is a mindless killer. It sucks for people who do own guns, now they may lose this right because we think every owner of a gun is obviously going to kill someone, right (Sarcasm)? Basically, yes we should add some MINOR changes that test to make sure you can be allowed to own and use a gun, but that is it.
ReplyDelete- Bradley Kern
You have a great point, yes, everyone deserves a vote. People have the right to bare arms. But, that by no means gives someone the right to kill a group of people, because they "have the right to bare arms." That's wrong. These fatal experiences with guns that these people have faced are experiences that you and I may never have to face. Let's not put guns in the hands of people who cannot control their gun or control their tempers. Background checks are a vital component to gun regulation but so is a mental evaluation of the consumer, because there are too many people getting access to dangerous weapons. Let's face it, if we ban guns, people are still going to get them, but yet, people think if we ban assault weapons, they will be all gone. That's not even close to the solution, we need to stop the people, because people with guns kill people, not the guns. The guns are just being made the bad guy, because American's can't face up to the fact that are way too many crazy people out there.
ReplyDeleteReading your paper made me understand both sides of argument. I do agree that people who were affected by such tragedy do deserve their voices to be heard over the debate on gun ban, but it’s not just them who deserve a say on this. Banning the guns won’t be beneficial to both sides because people will always find away to everything. I agree with you it won’t stop gun violence but make it more dangerous. I understand the families point, they experienced such great tragedy and loss that they would want what they think is best. Sometimes we humans tend to let our emotions affect our decisions. Nevertheless, I think both sides deserve to have their voices heard over this debate on gun ban.
ReplyDeleteI think that you did a good job in this article of presenting both sides of the issue. I think you made clear what your opinion on the topic of gun control was while not veering from the idea of equal representation and the deservence of a vote. I understand why President Obama would have representation from his side of the aisle at his State of the Union Address, but I think you brought up the question of, "don't those on the other side deserve a vote as well?". Ultimately the laws of this country aren't defined by the concerns of the few in power, but by the will of the majority. Personally, I believe that it is the government's job to protect the wishes of the American people. Oftentimes politicians spend so much time wrapped up in their own agenda while not looking for the valid arguments of their opponents. I think you did a nice job of presenting both your views and compromises that could potentially take place.
ReplyDelete