As yet another shooting occurred this weekend, Americans ponder the age-old debate over gun control. We as students are the voice of the future of our country, and how we feel about certain issues such as gun control will determine how these problems are settled in the future. So, I know that this can be a touchy debate, but let’s discuss.
First off, should Americans even be able to own guns? And before all of my fellow hunters get worked up about that one, WHY should we be allowed to own guns? If we could not hunt, that would boost the economy by people buying more meat at the grocery store which in turn benefits the ranchers and farmers who provide the meat. In addition, if no one could own guns then the amount of shootings would go down simply because firearms would not be as easy to obtain. But, outlawing guns infringes upon our “right to bear arms”, as described in the Second Amendment. I have grown up around firearms, they are a part of my family’s lifestyle and I love to hunt. Personally, I would protest very strongly against guns being outlawed. But, I see the points that others have made and do agree that regulations need to be put on owners. What type of regulations might be beneficial? Should civilians be allowed to own military-grade weapons? Should there be a limit on how many guns a person can own? Are background checks necessary? To wrap this up, how can we ensure that the public is safe and still be guaranteed the rights that we are promised as citizens of this free country?
45 Comments
McKinlee
10/29/2018 01:46:52 pm
I do not believe that guns should be outright banned due to it violating our rights. I do think that should be regulations though. The ideas of background checks and the limit of how many guns one can own seem fairly reasonable to me. Just as we have the right to vote there are still restrictions such as felons not being able to, so maybe if you've committed a felony you should not be able to own a gun. Civilians should also not be allowed to own military grade weapons. Although there will always be those that find a way past the restrictions we set I believe that they would be a way to ensure public safety while not totally voiding the rights of the people.
Reply
Rachel
10/30/2018 12:25:29 pm
I agree that guns should not be banned completely. Your idea of not being eligible to own a gun once someone has committed a felony is smart. But what about the people who have never committed a crime, and then just all of a sudden snap and use their weapons destructively? Is there a way to prevent that?
Reply
Mckinlee
11/4/2018 04:14:55 pm
I honestly do not believe that there would be a way to prevent that. I mean we could say the same for a hacker suddenly hacking a government system but there’s no way to really stop that either. Humans are too unpredictable to be able to prevent those kinds of things
Kelsey
11/3/2018 02:50:35 pm
How intense do you think the background checks should be? I definitely agree that civilians should not be permitted to have military grade weapons because that is uncalled for - there is nothing people should be using them for in everyday life.
Reply
Katherine
11/4/2018 09:51:28 am
I agree that civilians should not be allowed to own military grade weapons. It is unnecessary and there is really nothing that they can use them for. I think that there should definitely be restrictions on criminals, but more on the ones who have committed acts of violence.
Reply
Katarina
11/4/2018 01:56:27 pm
I don't believe that civilians need military grade weapons, however I don't think the government has the right to control and limit the amount of guns a person has. Personally my family has more guns than most people need but guns aren't just weapons to some, they are family heirlooms. How can the government dictate what guns someone is allowed to keep and which ones aren't necessary. I don't think the amount of guns is the problem it's the people standing behind them.
Reply
Jazz
11/4/2018 07:00:00 pm
I completely agree with having regulations for those looking to purchase guns. Banning guns all together would cause extreme uproar from almost every American, see ex. Jesse Bellamy. Do you think there are other tests or determining factors for who should be eligible to buy firearms?
Reply
Kenna
10/29/2018 07:15:34 pm
Gun are a hot debate in our country but I don't believe they should be out right banned. More regulations, yes, but they should not be banned. Intense background checks should be used on people trying to buy guns. Military grade definitely should not be sold to the public. They're military grade! What do civilians need them for? I don't really see the point of a gun limit though, unless they are selling those guns. I would be worried if someone was buying 20 or more guns.
Reply
Rachel
10/30/2018 12:27:34 pm
What do you think would be a good limit to set on the number of guns that a person can own? I completely agree that military weapons should not be available to the public, do you think that there is a way to keep them solely in military control?
Reply
Kelsey
11/3/2018 02:56:07 pm
How do you think we should be solving the public shootings? Limiting gun control will definitely help, but if someone has a serious motive there are ways they can gain weapons, especially if guns are still allowed. Is there another way we can solve this crisis?
Reply
Brooke
11/4/2018 04:36:58 pm
I think some people buy military grade guns simply for the knowledge that they own that type. It's a bragging right, of sorts. So how would we go about limiting that? Humans are very proud.
Reply
Jazz
11/4/2018 07:04:01 pm
I agree that the shouldn't be gun limits unless those guns are being redistributed. If someone wants to buy eight guns to show off then why not let them, they're boosting the economy.
Reply
Baile
11/4/2018 08:04:50 pm
Why more regulations? What would be the point? More restrictions means a future gun prohibition, where guns become like alcohol, and people will find more and more ways to have them without them being known about.
Reply
Kelsey
11/3/2018 11:52:33 am
The constitution was ratified in 1788, which is over 200 years ago. Cultural values, problems, and rights change over the span of 200 years, so the constitution should be updated the change the outdated second amendment to; citizens have the right to bear arms if they have no criminal background or any proof of psychological problems. This will limit the amount of unsuitable gun owners. However, this will not completely fix the problem of public shootings. This problem is much larger than gun control. We would have to dive into the mental state of our country to solve the violence crisis. An unstable perpetrator will not be stopped by a law: there are other ways to obtain firearms. So, maybe we should focus on researching the psychological disorders perpetrators have and eventually find a solution.
Reply
Katherine
11/4/2018 09:48:57 am
I agree that we should focus more on the disorders and less on the guns. It's not the guns that are killing people, it's other people. if we focused on what their motivation is, we could find a way to prevent that with other people.
Reply
Katarina
11/4/2018 01:52:10 pm
I completely agree with this Kelsey. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Background checks and mental health checks would be a great start in the right direction. If our nation focused more and took more action in mental health problems a whole list of problems may be closer to being solved.
Reply
Mckinlee
11/4/2018 04:19:01 pm
200 years is quite a long time, and you’re totally right about cultures and mindsets changing. I agree that we could update the amendment but most would be against that because they do not like change. I also agree with focusing on our country’s mindset concerning guns and how they are used.
Reply
Sadie
11/4/2018 05:19:35 pm
I completely agree. Criminals and psychos have already proven that they are not worthy of gun ownership or any right for that matter.
Reply
Kenna
11/4/2018 06:29:17 pm
Kelsey is correct. The guns aren't the problem people are. We definitely need to do something about it and find a solution for the mental disorders that are a problem.
Reply
Sariah
11/4/2018 07:45:14 pm
I like that you have acknowledged we are different than the people who lived when the constitution was written. Also that we are dealing with different guns, technology, and I believe more psychological problems. I think that updating the constitution is an ingenious way to take action when pertaining to gun laws.
Reply
Bailey
11/4/2018 08:06:26 pm
I think this would cause more issues. Requiring background checks to purchase a gun would cause so many issues. Gun businesses would go out of business. People would still be able to buy guns through facebook, or ebay, and people wouldn't do background checks selling second-hand.
Reply
Katherine
11/4/2018 09:47:51 am
I definitely don't think that guns should be out right banned. I believe that there should be restrictions on them though. I think background checks should be required. The "background checks" that take now often just consist of half of a page of yes or no questions. In an article I read from Maryland, if a purchaser wants to buy a semi-automatic gun, they have to submit a background check that is gone through by multiple investigators. If the State Police don't get back to the seller within 7 days, the seller can just hand the gun over. I don't think that this should be the case. Even if it takes up to a month, they should still have the background check. It is also hard to limit the amount of guns that a person has because they can buy a gun from friends, family, or even off the internet and those purchases can't be tracked. Without banning guns completely, it is difficult to control what happens and who gets guns.
Reply
Jesse B.
11/4/2018 02:25:25 pm
The Maryland background checks are an interesting method of doing them and I like it. I definitely agree that since not all firearm transactions can be monitored, it can be a challenge to find out how many guns a person might own. Is there anything else that you would do to fix the issue at hand?
Reply
Jesse B.
11/4/2018 01:33:20 pm
As citizens of the United States, we have many rights granted to us by the government. Those include freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and equal justice. We also have the right to bear arms. Ever since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, firearms have been part of the American way of life. They are how we defended our homes from foreign invaders, provided food for our families, and tamed the Wild West. Without them, we would still be singing “God Save the Queen”. So, it is only fitting to say that the banning of guns in our country is an extreme and even unconstitutional measure to take against our weapons, but that does not mean that more directives concerning them are illegal. The severe actions taken by countries such as Great Britain and Australia might have aided in their issues, but the US is a different story. Americans possess close to half of all civilian-owned rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. in the world; around 312 million. So, rounding up that many boom sticks would be an impossible task. Also, it clearly states in the 2nd Amendment that “[...] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The key word in that sentence is “keep”; we have the right to “keep” our guns. Any administration that attempts to take away the blessings given to us by our founding fathers, goes against what our nation stands for. “With great power, comes great responsibility” pertains to much, but especially to firearms. It is the responsibility of the leaders of this place to regulate the immense power that comes with this weaponry. Admittedly, the laws that surround them are quite lax, so action needs to be taken. Regulations that make the purchase and sale of “artillery” more difficult and those related to semi- and fully-automatic versions being more strict are needed. If it is harder for a mentally insane person to get their hands on one of them, they are less likely to go through with their deed.
Reply
Katarina
11/4/2018 01:49:24 pm
In regards to gun violence I do believe we should have stricter rules for people purchasing a firearm. However as people seem to think if we outlaw guns completely it will lower the gun violence but it will not stop people from murdering. If people want to create mass casualties they will. Prohibiting them from owning a gun will only change the way they do it. Making it harder for certain people to own guns may help the problem but not stop it. Bottom line if someone wants to kill someone not owning a gun won't stop them.
Reply
Jesse B.
11/4/2018 02:12:30 pm
I am right with you in saying that if people have the will to kill, they will find a method to do so. It would be more difficult to commit large killings with a knife compared to an assault weapon though. What would be some firearm regulations that you would suggest to implement?
Reply
Brooke
11/4/2018 04:33:33 pm
People will commit mass killings regardless, true. Although restricting gun use may help at least limit the shootings. Many people have guns simply because they are fun to shoot, so who's to tell what the use is for? We definitely need to up the regulations.
Reply
Kenna
11/4/2018 06:34:29 pm
I agree, outllawing guns will not stop people from killing other. They will find another way. Also, background checks are necessary for people to own guns.
Reply
Sariah
11/4/2018 07:49:56 pm
I agree that banning guns will not stop gun violence or killings what so ever. I beeline it would give the ill people using them for wrong things more satisfaction when using them because what they would be doing is even more illegal. I think that it would also cause an increase in bomb usage which indeed is a lot more dangerous and obvious these days. Almost anyone could make a bomb and it is way too easy to aquire the things to do so. This world is just sick and as much as we can do to try and lesson the murder rate or mentally ill in my opinion is a change worth making, even if it’s by .11111%
Reply
Brooke
11/4/2018 04:26:53 pm
I bet nearly every citizen in Idaho is in possession of a gun, let alone perhaps ten. Owning firearms are commonplace here, specifically because hunting is a large part of our society. But take a look at a state such as New York-- they own guns for an entirely different reason: protection. So, if we undertand the factors on why each state owns guns, I believe the regulations could be altered accordingly. For example; Idaho's regulations could focus more on the type of gun and would overall be more leniant. Meanwhile, New York's regulations could focus on intense background checks and limiting the number (and types) of guns in an individual's arson. This way, states would each regulate the limitations in a way that works for that specific state, as opposed to a singular unanimous law.
Reply
Sadie
11/4/2018 05:24:44 pm
Yes, Idaho is, in fact, extremely different than New York and both should be observed as such. Not many gun control strategies can be applied to both of us and that is just the way it is.
Reply
Challis
11/4/2018 06:23:36 pm
I see what you're getting at but shouldn't everyone that is purchasing a gun have an extensive background check no matter where they are from? If someone cant pass or is unwilling to have a very deep background check for the safety of everyone, I do not think they that they should be able to purchase a firearm no matter what they say they are using it for.
Reply
Brooke
11/4/2018 06:31:05 pm
Well, of course the background checks would be very thorough regardless of where one is from. I'm talking about other, smaller regulations that will make the law adaptable for each state.
Saylor
11/4/2018 07:22:27 pm
I agree, all places need background checks. There are some places, such as New York, who could use more extensive background checks but all in all if a gun is wanted to be purchased, at least the person selling should know they are stable enough to own a firearm.
Reply
Conrad
11/4/2018 07:56:26 pm
I think this is an excellent idea, as long as it doesn't restrict some people who would be completely fine and safe with such guns. I think the type of gun owned, or the number has absolutely nothing to do with the issues, but the people who own them, that's what we need to be more worried about.
Reply
Sadie
11/4/2018 05:13:59 pm
I believe that we should teach gun safety to all classroom students no matter where they live. People would be more likely to take guns seriously and treat them with care. They are not toys and should not be treated as such. Accidents involving guns are all related to carelessness and/or a lack of education. Purposeful harm to a human is another story. We need to be executing more detailed background checks on buyers. All of these shooters have mental issues, not gun problems. Also, if they want to harm someone, they will do it with or without a military-grade gun. It hasn't been nearly as much of a problem in the past, so that means something else is going on. People should have as many guns as they want too. Having guns does not equal danger, but it does mean we should be cautious. My dad, in high school in the 70s, gave a presentation on how to load a real muzzleloader in the classroom. No one batted an eyelash. This attitude towards guns was reasonable and should be reintroduced into our culture. We should learn from it rather than ban it.
Reply
Challis
11/4/2018 06:18:09 pm
I agree gun safety classes are important. I definitely do not think legally anyone should own a gun if they have not taken special classes or have not been tested to make sure that they 100% know what they are doing.
Reply
Saylor
11/4/2018 07:20:10 pm
That's a really good thought, if people are required to have gun safety regulations people would take more care of the guns. Maybe knowing how dangerous the really are might save some lives?
Reply
Conrad
11/4/2018 07:58:06 pm
It has been proven that such safety classes have reduced accidents. I also completely agree that it is the people who are the issue not the gun, which means that people should be restricted more than the type or quantity of guns.
Reply
Challis
11/4/2018 06:15:36 pm
I do not think that banning all guns for civilians will be beneficial in anyway. It would be slightly harder for people to get them, yes, but just as people that want illegal drugs get them, most likely people that want illegal guns will get them too. That leaves the law abiding citizens without self defense against criminals that have guns. I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves and if you have a hunting license go for it. I do not think that guns should be given to anyone without extensive background checks and testing to make sure they know how to properly and responsibly use them. As for military-grade weapons,citizens should not have them. Why would anyone absolutely need to have one? Having a simple gun for self defense is one thing but no one needs a machine gun to protect themselves or hunt.
Reply
Sariah
11/4/2018 07:08:30 pm
I think pertaining to the one comment made about the economy and how taking away guns could benefit it in a way is a very minimal outlook on guns and the economy. As anyone who has purchased a firearm knows they are not cheap. I almost guarantee that guns are a big impact for our economy when it comes to money that is. It takes not only excessive amounts of money to own a gun but to also buy the ammo and to perform necessary maintenance on it. Therefore the production of guns does increase our economies intake. But on the other hand I believe people abuse guns(obviously as we can see). We as the future of America should want to regulate this better. However even if we do there will always be people who abuse the privilege just as there is with alcohol, drugs, health benefits, etc. I think America has become lazy with our laws and regulations and have been more focused on money then safety of other people at least when talking about alcohol, drugs, and guns.
Reply
Saylor
11/4/2018 07:18:45 pm
Guns should not be banned completely.if guns are completely banned, people will find ways around it anyways. Banning them will make them wanted even more honestly.anyone buying a gun should definitely get a background check. If people looking to purchase a gone have a felony or a mental disorder or suck should not be allowed guns, but people use them for hunting and practicing for war or such. Even if there are certain restrictions people are going to find a way around it.
Reply
Jazz
11/4/2018 07:53:22 pm
I don't know much about guns or how to get them, but I do know that the process of getting one is already pretty air tight. However, there are a few areas that are questionable. My main concern with the system right now is that pretty much anyone can walk into a Walmart and buy a gun. I think that guns should be sold in an appropriate environment. If someone underage walks into a regular gun store, they will most likely be turned away at the door, but in franchises like Walmart and Target anyone can stroll right in. General rule of thumb, if your store sells produce and toys for kids two and under, you shouldn't be selling firearms. Another issue is that right now anyone above 21 in the right state can buy a military grade weapon. Even if the FBI background checks Mrs. Citizen, is there any logical reason for her to have one? In order to buy a gun, a person should have to go through mental health testing and should not be allowed to purchase one if they have a felony on their record. After buying, the person should have to go through a gun safety class to be sure that they know how to use it properly. Banning guns completely isn't the correct option, but there should be regulations issued in order to get one. Having guns for self defense and hunting is perfectly reasonable, but restrictions are necessary.
Reply
Conrad
11/4/2018 07:53:57 pm
I think certain points of gun control (aka. regulations) do need to be made to keep the general public safe. Every society or group of people has the "bad apple" which can ruin it for everyone and ruin everyone. I have a problem with regulations which interfere with those who deserve to own a gun or will use it correctly being able to buy a gun. Banning guns is simply not possible and will cause many more problems than it will solve but tighter regulations may help, as long as it isn't conflicting with those who will use this constitutional right correctly and safely.
Reply
Bailey
11/4/2018 08:03:46 pm
I do not think that guns should be restricted, period. It is due to the current restrictions that people have and use guns in the negative way that they do. If we outlawed guns currently, it would turn into the prohibition all over again. But worse. I think that guns should be allowed to be handled and owned like they were previously. I am avidly against gun control, as if it continues as it is going, the government will practically take away are second amendment rights, which I am avidly for.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2019
Categories |