Virginia Tech and Gun Control

Both sides of the gun control issue have spoken up. One side claims that if it had been more difficult for the shooter to obtain the guns, the incident might not have happened. The other side claims that if another student or a teacher had been armed, the death toll could have been lower. The problem is both sides are right.

The cat is already out of the bag on the issue of gun control (I do not own a gun). Fifty years ago we might have had a chance, but now there are 235,000,000 firearms owned in the United States (source: gunsafe.org). Because this number is so huge, I believe the NRA is now correct. If you outlaw guns, the only people that will have them are those who do not care what the laws say. Strictly from a practical point of view we must allow good, law abiding people to own guns. There are already plenty of laws in some states that attempt to restrict gun ownership, but a total ban would only mean that criminals would be armed, and not the rest of us.

1 comment:

Perplexio said...

What many people don't realize is that the principles that founded our country were largely based on a distrust of government that stemmed from the colonists distrust of the English monarchy. They wanted to put checks and balances into play that would prevent the US government from ever ending up like British government.

We're taught the basic checks & balances between the branches of government growing up when we're in school. But the first and second amendments to the Constitution act as 2 additional checks against the government-- to keep it from becoming too unwieldy, powerful or corrupt.

The freedom of speech and press in the first amendment guarantee us the right to speak out against our government or as was stated in the Declaration of Independence 15 years before the Bill of Rights: "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances." If those in power know that we have the right to "call them out" for their misdeeds & fraud it's a check against them doing things wrong.

The 2nd amendment is a more extreme extension of that. If those who are in power know that the populace is well armed or has the right to be well armed and thus has the potential for an armed insurrection/revolution against a government that might have become too corrupt-- those in power are less apt to take actions that would give them too much of that power.