My readers must take note that I am neither liberal or conservative. I’ve almost always looked at the world through the lens of my Catholic Christian tradition. I’m still careful to distance myself from anyone who makes an attempt to pigeon hole me in this regard. I do my best to walk a straight path, neither looking too hard to the left or too hard to the right.
My main goals are to discuss the holes in both the left and the rights arguments surrounding the problem of gun control. I will be compiling a conclusion of what kind of gun control we really need. The post may seem over-simplistic and short, but that is only because I feel the solutions to America’s gun problem are not complicated.
The liberal argument is that guns are wrong, they should be banned altogether. America’s gun laws are the cause of all these terrorist acts. If they didn’t exist, mass shooting’s would be almost non-existing and gun crime at an all-time low. They like to employ the old adage “make love, not war”.
Conservatives lay claim to guns being a positive force in our society. Americans should be allowed to exercise the right to bear arms as afforded them by the second amendment of the constitution. Guns are seen as something that prevents terrorism and criminals from prevailing over society. If guns ceased to exist, the level of crime rate would skyrocket. They like to employ the old adage, “Make war, and love we can make that after.”
Holes In The Liberal Position
Statistics have proven that the city of Chicago with the highest amount of gun control in all of America happens to have the most crime. On the other hand, cities with the most considerable leniency on gun control in America have a much lower crime rate. Banning guns altogether doesn’t eliminate crime as proven in countries like the UK, who suffer a lot of knife crime, acid attacks and bombing by terrorists.
Banning guns is also tactic by fascist, socialist and communist regimes who wanted to remove from people the ability to rise up against them. Communist governments, by implementing gun control, had greater control of the population.
Furthermore, if someone is going to kill someone with a gun, they’ll import it. May make gun crime more difficult to achieve, but there will still be gun crime like there is in some countries with a complete ban.
Holes In The Conservative Position
Gun crime may be lower in cities where there’s higher leniency towards guns, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some form of gun control. Other countries like Australia who have banned guns have literally no gun crime, and their crime rate as a whole is much lower than that of the United States. What does this tell us? The reduction in gun crime is not because people have more guns, rather, their citizens have a different attitude than those of the United States.
Just because the second amendment gives the right to bear arms, doesn’t mean it’s an unjust amendment we can’t change. If the constitution allowed for slavery, you’d see that as an “unjust law” and would seek to change it to fit a society that regrets such behaviour. Why can’t we do the same with the second amendment?
I’ve learned from listening to both the left and the right that we need both guns and reasonable control of them. I’ve seen conservatives points in action watching videos of civilians with arms stopping the bad guys. Likewise, I’ve seen the liberals one employed by specific deranged individuals from accessing firearms being brought to a halt.
What we need then is gun control laws that tighten the noose around anyone from obtaining a gun who currently has mental problems. Not only should these checks be performed, but laws that require an assessment from those who own a gun to visit a psychologist every 12 months of owning one be mandatory.
I believe if we were to do this, then gun crime would be reduced in America. Both sides would be appeased to some degree, but to ban them entirely, handing out guns like they’re candy canes in a sweet shop? Insane.
Do you agree? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.