Thursday, December 20, 2012

Gun Control or No Gun Control?

THAT is the question. 

Will defenselessness or guns ultimately protect the people? 

After the violence in Newton, Connecticut, (please pray for families and loved ones of the victims) senators and law makers are shifting towards gun control. It is a perfectly logical reaction to the deaths of innocent school children and their teachers. I agree, it is a terrible tragedy, but senators like Diane Feinstein (sadly a senator of my state) are perverting the deaths of children and heroes to pass these gun control laws.

Let's be realistic now - gun control is ideal in an Utopia-like country in which there are no enemies outside or within the country who centralize their beliefs on the deaths of Americans. However, we are not in a situation in which we fear no harm. Extremists in the Middle East attempt to harm Americans on a regular basis, and the United States has the highest number of serial killers and homicides in the world. Taking away guns will not influence the decrease of crime in the United States, it will dramatically increase crime, including robbery, assault, rape, and murder.

Do guns kill people?

NO. People kill people with guns. People also protect themselves and others with guns. 

The Democrats seem to forget that criminals don't follow the law. Heads up Dems, criminals break laws! Do Democrats honestly believe that by taking away our guns, our 2nd Amendment right to protect ourselves, that criminals will suddenly behave? I will never understand liberal logic.

Yes, taking away guns might prevent attacks from mentally ill people, but murderers, rapists, gang members, and terrorists will thrive if the citizens follow these gun laws.

GOOD citizens will not have guns, CRIMINALS will acquire guns, and the criminals will have the advantage!
(I am slowly flashing back to the first and third Batman movies in which all the criminals take over the city of Gothem equipped with their explosives and guns. Citizens beware!)

I can't stress the notion of using guns for protection is far more important than stripping the citizens of their Constitutional right to be able to protect themselves. Other countries around the world love this notion of having the powerful United States kneeling at the feet of other nations. For most Europeans, this will be a respective move, but for the terrorist organizations or Russia and maybe even China - this is the time to move. America disarmed, with the exception of criminals who illegally obtained guns that can't be registered to their name because it does not require a license, and the terrorists with assault weapons, bombs, or worse. Maybe it's because I loathe the idea of Communism, but is it a bit fishy that China suggests that Americans should be disarmed?

I love this ecard. It couldn't not be more correct.

In case you are unfamiliar with Fast and Furious, it is a federal operation in which a team with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives gave U.S weapons to suspected gun smugglers to be traced. The intent was for the guns to get into the hands of top Mexican drug cartel members, but it failed. Around 2,000 assault weapons have been lost, resulting in two American citizen deaths, scores of Mexican citizens deaths, and the federal agents have not made any arrests of the cartel members. Two days ago, a Mexican beauty queen was found murdered in her home with a Fast and Furious assault weapon.

So yes, you better believe I will not listen to an irresponsible administration telling me whether I am allowed to protect myself or not. Who knows, one of those guns could be a threat to me one day, and I will not be defenseless, but rather answer that threat with full force.

Guns are such a depressing topic. You either live, die, or are in pain. I'd rather have guns to protect myself.

Imagine if the Principal had a gun locked up in a protected locker in his office, or if one person in the movie theater in Colorado had a gun for protection - the outcome could have been different. Who knows how many lives could've been spared?

Which brings me to a compromise for both of the two main political parties. Instead of gun control, let's run things similar to Israel. Teachers there carry guns on their backs, but that is too extreme for the United States.
My compromise would be
1) To have a set locker with a gun locked up in it at all times at schools. Only the principal would have the right to this locker, and the principal would take charge if a situation like the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre occured.
2) There will be background testing and/or drug testing prior to receiving a gun and gun license.
3) All convicted criminals and mentally ill patients can never acquire a gun. Ever.
4) Have all gun owners require to pass a gun proficiency test. This will insure that in the case of protecting an individual or group, the person will be able to quickly and efficiently maim or take out the target.

There are arguments on both sides of the spectrum. What is your side? Do you agree or disagree with me? Feel free to leave a comment below, I love a little bit of respectful and tasteful feedback.


  1. Good post, I like that you proposed solutions and I think that they are in the right vein, but I somewhat disagree with them.

    1) This wont prevent someone from walking into a classroom and shooting students. You still have the problem of response time. While it may greatly reduce it, in a large school it may take several minutes for the principle to reach the target with a weapon (He/ She has to be contacted, get to the gun safe). Also, I think it is wishful thinking that most principles are skilled marksmen, and would be willing/ able to perform these actions. What do you think about letting teachers to concealed carry?
    2) Already the case in most states I think. (It depends on where you stand in the libertarian spectrum, but many believe you shouldn't need the government's permission to exercise a basic right).
    3) While a big part of me agrees with this, part of me thinks it will just drive a black market for firearms.
    4) Being proficient doesn't mean you will be able to adequately use a weapon in self defense. Training everyone to the point of being able to use a gun in stressful situations would be prohibitively expensive.

    Maybe I'm nitpicking, but theres no point if everyone is just gonna agree with each other!

    Please check out my blog if you get the chance:

  2. Thank you Dan :) Yes, I have my own personal opinions about what I would like to see. My compromise was moreso about how the Republicans and Democrats should be able to compromise. Sadly Libertarians don't have much of a 'say' in politics.

    Answering your questions
    1) I do think a principal would be much faster in reaching the target than the police - it could take up to ten minutes. There is a chance the principal might fail, or might succeed. I would prefer they had a weapon over teachers, because I don't like the thought of there being a gun in every classroom around children. I trust this idea for teachers, but not so much eager children.
    2) I agree with you completely!
    3) I agree with this too, but in a way it is already happening now. If the Government is involved in it (Fast and Furious) then I am sure criminals are. It begs the question if the current Government is involved in criminal activity or if it is the good of this nation. (maybe I will write a post on that)
    4) This is true, but there are ways to reduce the cost such as group settings. The more I think about this one, the more I love the idea and hate it.

    Ill check it out!