Some may believe that the outcome of the Virginia Tech shooting could have been prevented or perhaps “softened” if there had been an armed individual at the scene of the crime. While this may prove to be the ideal situation, I see a different situation in my mind. If gun control laws are to be weakening, I see a situation where Person #1 draws his gun and starts shooting. Then Person #2, hearing the commotion, draws his gun and shoots Person #1. Persons #3 and #4, seeing #1 and #2 with guns blazing, shoot them both, and so on. I believe that there is good reason as to why SWAT teams and other police organizations undergo special training. Why do all those pro-gun activists out there think that they can do what cops do? The cops undergo a LOT of training, and even then, the cops do not always like the odds that are presented. They know how to react and to intimidate, keys to bettering your odds in gun play. We the gun buying public do not, except for maybe a small minority. I sincerely believe that an armed public will result in an influx of accidental shootings/deaths which will vastly outnumber the potential lives that could have been saved.
When pro-gun activists say that “if everyone was carrying a gun, everyone would be able to defend themselves,” I am not sure if they fail to realize cases of mental illness and domestic violence. In these cases, I believe that it is far better to have no guns around. They become a greater source of temptation to the desperate. Any mentally ill person or person with a criminal background can walk into a gun show and buy a firearm with no questions asked.
The problem with gun control laws is that criminals do not abide by the law, whatever those laws happen to be. Carefully crafted administrative procedures will have absolutely zero effect on the propensity of a person hell bent on committing a violent crime to procure a firearm. Law abiding citizens however, will usually abide by those laws and will have their access to firearms restricted. We are left with a society with easy access to firearms that have armed criminals and unarmed law abiding citizens. However in these types of situations, we should place our trust in our police force, as an armed public is more dangerous than an unarmed one with several criminals running around.
The Second Amendment was a product of the 18th century - just as "bleeding" to get rid of bad blood was a product of their medicine. We would be horrified by anyone foolish enough to practice that kind of medicine today. In the 18th century there was reason to think a "well regulated" militia might have to depend on private ownership of guns, like to fend off a foreign invasion. That concept is obviously no longer valid - just as bleeding is no longer good medical practice.
What I do not understand is why anyone would need to purchase more than one gun a month, in the USA, no less. I cannot even begin to fathom the thought of a person thinking he needs to purchase multiple guns within a month. Would you not be frightened by someone coming into a gun store demanding multiple handguns (from the perspective of both the store owner and a random civilian)? Sure, maybe it might inconvenience someone who needs a gun for himself and his son to go out hunting, but all this means is an extra month of waiting.
Two Supreme Court cases which greatly influence our current era of gun control are District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In essence, District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. However, the decision did not address the question of whether the second Amendment extends to the states. This is when the “to-be-decided” McDonald v. Chicago court case comes into play. The purpose of the lawsuit is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It will be interesting to see how this Supreme Court Case plays out and how it will completely redraw the lines between pro-gun activists and gun-control proponents.
No comments:
Post a Comment