Counterclaim and Rebuttal:



The Entitlement of Self- DefenseCiro Benites, Jake Brown, Ryan Haws, Emily McBridePeriod 1English 1010The right to self-defense has always been something important to American citizens. Due to recent events with the major shootings in Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado people are beginning to solidify their beliefs on guns, and fight for laws on them. Whereas most people believe that government regulation on firearms protects the people of the United States, it truly leaves them vulnerable and that is why there should not be limits on firearms. The question is: does gun control protect the innocent, or leave them vulnerable?The liberal media seems to believe that regulation on firearms would lessen the amounts of violent crime in the United States of America, but the cold hard reality is that it will not. We will compare the United States to the United Kingdom to provide some startling statistics. The United Kingdom has a complete ban on firearms, meaning that nobody may own a gun in the UK. The United States is number one in the world for gun ownership, 88 out of 100 people own guns. The United Kingdom places number one in the world for violent crimes, (2,034 per 100 thousand people). The US doesn't even place in the top ten for violent crimes in the world, (466 per 100 thousand people). The UK's total crime rate is 10,872 per 100 thousand people, and the United States' total crime rate is 3,959 per 100 thousand people. The United States ranks at 28 in the world for gun murders. 2011 FBI Crime Statistics ().The liberal media believes that banning firearms will prevent violent crimes and mass shootings involving innocent men, women, and children? Based on the statistics listed above, gun freedom is not the problem, firearm legislation and regulation is the problem. By looking at the statistics, it seems as if we need more guns in the hands of civilians.Now we would like to discuss the issue of the mass shootings that have occurred in the last year or so. If there had been an armed guard in Sandy Hook Elementary School, Adam Lanza (the shooter), would have been dead long before he was able to kill 28 innocent children and adults. Had there been concealed weapon permit carriers in the movie theater in Aurora Colorado, James Holmes' shooting spree would have been brought to an abrupt halt before he had the chance to shoot 70 people, and kill 12 of them. This is why we need less absurd legislation on firearms. Based on the shocking statistics listed in previous paragraphs, guns are clearly not the issue, the issue is government regulation on firearms.The Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment that, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Jeff Sourbeer (2013) stated, “When the Second Amendment was written, ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well practiced’.” We believe in this statement and that our rights should not be taken away. There should not be limitations on the number of guns you can own, how many bullets are in a magazine, or stricter background checks. These background checks would be pointless because in the major shootings, nearly all of the perpetrators had no prior criminal record. Making guns inaccessible to the law-abiding citizens would be irresponsible because it takes away the means by which they would protect themselves. Now, let’s look at the issue of drugs. Drugs are illegal, but how many people do we know who easily access drugs? The same concept applies with guns—if criminals want them, then they will get them. Just because there are laws in place doesn’t mean criminals are going to abide by them. When we restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns, we are not keeping them from the hands right704850of criminals, but we are leaving the innocent vulnerable. This is clearly represented in this cartoon. Criminals will get what they want, and the innocent will further suffer unless our Second Amendment right is protected. Magazines should not be limited because the shooter is likely to have multiple guns and wouldn’t need to swap magazines (Gun Control and the Constitution). In an interview with Dave, who works at Sportsman’s Warehouse, we asked him multiple questions on his opinions on guns, and how their business is affected. Dave said that he was not allowed to share his opinion, but that they were obviously firm supporters of the Second Amendment and their guns are for hunting more than anything. The recent legislation proposals have affected their sales by boosting the magazine and assault weapons sales. He also informed us, that there are already restrictions on gun shows in Utah, so that legislation does not affect Utah too much. Sourbeer said:“Further, we should understand that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to bear arms; that right is pre-existent. The Second Amendment forbids government from abridging that right. This is a subtle but very important difference.” right1179195When a person is stabbed, people do not cry out that we need to ban knives. So then, why should guns be outlawed? A gun does not just shoot someone because it wants to, or at its own liberty. There has to be someone pulling the trigger. This diagram addresses this plain fact quite simply. When someone is beat, strangles, or stabbed, it is sad and wrong, but nothing is made to rid the public of the weapon. In those cases, the perpetrator was acting on his own, but in issues with guns, the gun is the issue. If there were citizens carrying guns of their own, for protection, there wouldn’t be mass killings, there would be means to fight back. We believe that guns are an American privilege that was placed upon on us hundreds of years ago. Current bills that are trying to be passed would take that away from us. Obama is currently pushing for gun control. With the past tragedies happening, he has put up a case on why guns should be controlled. The change should occur with no bills going against our Second Amendment. Although it is sad that he past things have been happening, it is not because of the guns. It is the people who use the guns that are behind the crime. Guns should not be regulated or outlawed. The Second Amendment is our given right from the people, and we need to protect it. In 1996, there was a mass shooting in Australia. After the tragic event, Australia enacted a law that restricted firearms. The restriction included a ban on semi-automatic weapons, a mandatory gun buyback, and strict limits on who could own a firearm. (Steve Chapman) The law being put into place did bring the homicide rate down, but research suggests that it was already down before 1996. “There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicide,” (Steve Chapman) Which would suggest that the mass shooting had no effect on the mortality rate. And although there have been no mass shooting since then, there has still been homicides. Carolyn McCarthy, a representative in New York’s fourth congressional district, put her foot down after the Arizona shooting in 2011. She made it clear that legislation on stricter gun control had to be made. Being the fiercest gun control advocate in congress, she released a bill to outlaw higher gun magazines. I can’t but help notice that she’s adding another bill that may or may not get passed to become another gun control law among the 20,000 others that already exist. In an article by George Skelton, he states that in California, gun rights advocates “talked past each other” (Skelton, 2013) arguing on how they could make everybody safer from firearms. As the committee hearing presumed, citizens lined up and voiced their opinions saying that “Gun control laws are unconstitutional because of the second amendment. And those laws don’t stop gun violence; they only harass innocent law-abiding citizens.”(Skelton, 2013). The committee ended up approving five bills that would tighten the already existent gun control laws. One example included the ban of magazines holding more than ten rounds. Passing these bills are going to anger the citizens even more causing what I call a never ending debate. To add on to that never ending debate I read another article written by Ed O’Keefe and Tom Hamburger which discussed concealed-carry permits ending the gun bill. They mentioned that gun lobbyists and legislators have made talk about adding a poison pill, which would put state permit holders going to other states in a national database by law enforcement. Gun rights activists strongly oppose this. Subsequently that wouldn’t be the case if back in 2009 when the NRA preferred a proposal to grant individuals who have a permit the right to transfer their rights to another state (Keefe, Hamburger, 2013). In summary this whole legislation is an obscene havoc that I would have to describe as an unresolved problem that will only persist unless we can come up with a solution that favors both sides of the debate. Something that I have come across as a solution to the gun control debate is to treat and don’t give guns to people with mental illnesses. It’s simple and most people don’t realize it but mental illness is what has caused all of the major shootings throughout the year. The saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is as realistic as it gets. A gun is a mere tool that when picked up by a person can be used in any way the person desires. We need to focus on what drives these people to have that desire to pick up a gun and kill people. If somebody wants to go on a mass killing and they notice that they can’t obtain a gun illegally, which is very possible, they will simply move on to the next weapon. You might say,” but that’s very unlikely for somebody to go on a killing spree with a mere knife”. But the evidence is there; in china a man did just that and went on a killing spree in an elementary school. He obviously moved on to the next weapon because he was unable to obtain a gun. Now as you can see that’s why we should stop focusing solely on guns. We need to focus on the people who hold the guns when these shootings occur. I’ve noticed that mental illness is a subject that receives little public attention. We see it as an uncomfortable subject to address. Out of fear and embarrassment many people who struggle with mental illnesses refuse to get help. Families of those with mental illnesses struggle to get help for those who need it for those exact reasons. Isn’t it obvious? We need to address the subject more. Make these people feel comfortable about addressing the issue and talking to somebody about it. They need to know that there not the only ones struggling with the illnesses that overwhelms their entire life. Schools programs, addressing the issue through the media, and simply recognizing the fault that you’re at could all help ease the problem. In short we have come to a conclusion through evidence that both the Sandy Hook and the Aurora Colorado incidents involved a shooter with a mental illness. It’s easy to notice that this is becoming a trend. We need to target mental illnesses as the source to counter these mass shootings, not the guns, the people.Firearm control is controversial, there is no denying. Both sides can offer strong reasons to their cases. Both sides have notable figures backing each side as well. It is true that the recent happenings are sad and unfair. The Aurora shooting and the Newtown shooting for a quick nod, are indeed tragic. And yes, firearms were used in the crimes. But this does not necessarily qualify for abandoning guns for the American people. Again, gun control is controversial, so obviously there will be two sides for that statement. President Barack Obama has been pushing for a law that would control the American guns. “We’ve cried enough,” (Tom Cohen, CNN) was stated by Obama on his speech of what happened in Newton. “and it is now time for Americans to pressure their elected leaders to pass a package of laws proposed by Senate Democrats.” (Tom Cohen, CNN) Obama announced his speech, somber and angry. Family members of Newton victims sat and listened, along with America. He then goes on to say “Shame on us, if Newton doesn’t bring new gun laws.” While President Obama may have a point, many points are missing. Taking away guns from everyone for what a few have done is mass punishment. The majority of people who abide by the current gun laws outweigh the few. (Elizabeth Flock, US News) What is widely ignored a lot of the time is the fact that Adam Lanza was possibly mentally ill. He was described and nervous, fidgety and was believed to have a personality disorder. (Elizabeth Flock, US News) So perhaps those mentally ill should be put on regulations on whether to own a firearm or not. Those with a past of suggestive actions that could maybe spark a tragedy like Sandy Hook Elementary, can be prevented with proper preparations. Some states have already taken action for mental illness eligibility on purchasing weapons. In California, if a person is placed on a 72 hour psychiatric hold in a facility, then that person cannot purchase firearms for five years after they were admitted. (Elizabeth Flock, US News) In Georgia and Mississippi, guns rights are restricted not only for those involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, but also for people who brought themselves to the hospital. (Elizabeth Flock, US News) These laws have been a positive for the most part, with little complaint and good progress.Background checks are another being argued for change. Some may argue that background checks will nullify certain aspects of control, while others say it will only do good for Americans. According to Joe Klein, a celebrated Time journalist, background checks does not address the presence of semi-assault rifles and 30-bullet magazines. (Joe Klein, Time) He says that if background checks were passed, it would not be a major victory, but a significant defeat, because it does not address the earlier stated problem. Joe Klein also suggests that maybe the tragedies start at a much earlier stage than the time of the massacre or shooting. He says that parents need to do a better job in teaching their children on weapons, and see the early signs for a potentially violent child. “...Where the testimony of parents, teachers and doctors has a greater impact on the control of these extremely dangerous people than it now does.” (Joe Klein, Time) Perhaps parents and early role models can provide a more stable foundation for children, and maybe preventing the horrors of what we have experienced.Now, for the next thing, implementing change to the public. Parents do not have to be the only ones educating their children with gun safety tips, but educational institutes as well. The youth in schools can be taught on gun safety, signs of mental illness, and on warning signs. Courses can be put on subject for people who want to learn more, mainly adults. High schools can place new courses for the teenagers who attend. Some courses may even allow some gun use, and the proper way of using one. Educating the public would be no easy feat. People are sided with one side, talking about other things, and vying for change in other areas. Bringing everyone under one cloud, and educating on things that are needed is difficult. Universities can be a huge help in this, sponsoring certain clubs and awareness committees along the way. Advertisements can even be used, sponsors for big names can even be brought into the mixture. But off course, seeking a deal with a big name when it comes to politics isn’t always the easiest thing. Change will come, either way, responding to the change will be key for the outcome. References: Skelton, G. (April 21, 3013). Chasm divides gun control and gun rights advocates. Capitol Journal. Retrieved, from O’Keefe, E., Hamburger, T. (April 12, 2013). Could national reciprocity of concealed-carry permits kill the gun bill. Washington Post. Retrieved, from ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download