Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Issue 2013: Gun Control


by Kristina Hopkins
It is impossible to ignore the fact that the United States is in a large amount of debt. With the obvious consequence of going over the fiscal cliff, congress will not be able to put the economy of the United States on the back burner, but Congress will also be facing many other issues in the coming year. In December, 20 children and 8 adults died at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the United States gun violence is a large problem and seems to be on the rise.

I understand that at the time when the Constitution was written, having a gun was a form of protection, but the times have changed and citizens owning guns seem to be harming us more than it is helping us. 20 children's lives and the lives of many others are cut short because normal citizens are allowed to own weapons. This is something that needs to be changed. I despise the saying “guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns do,” because it was the gun that killed those children and the “crazy” person should not have been able to get his hands on it. Stricter laws on gun ownership and the types of guns available for purchase need to be made, and I know that this will occupy the minds of Congress because no one wants another tragedy like the one in Newton or in Columbine many years ago.


4 comments:

  1. Now that we narrowly avoided going over the fiscal cliff, its seems as though lawmakers should turn towards legislation for gun control, especially after the events at Sandyhook Elementary. In 1996 a similar massacre as to the one that occurred in Newton, Connecticut ripped through the Scottish town of Dunblane. 16 children aged five and six were massacred along with their teacher. Following the 1987 "Hungerford massacre" Britain introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988-"making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning semi-automatic and pump-action weapons." 18 months after the Dunblane massacre, the UK passed a ban on private ownership of all handguns. The penalty for anyone found possessing an illegal firearm was anywhere from a heavy fine to a ten year sentence in prison. Since this legislation, crimes involving handguns fell 44%. Lawmakers should look toward successful legislation of other countries that helped to protect their citizens against gun violence. It is time to end gun violence.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. I too believe that this country needs stricter gun laws. However I am not for eliminating the right to own a gun all together. I think the main piece that congress should argue for would be too limit assault rifle amongst the normal population. There is no situation I can think of in my mind that would require an assault rifle. Arguing for just assault rifles could also be an easier route for congress to actually get something passed as opposed to taking on the entire gun control problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that congress needs to settle on a uniformed gun law. I believe that the government needs to change the requirements on buying certain guns, and that background checks need to be a lot more thorough. I don't think that any type of gun should be available to anyone except if you are in the military. Hunting guns should be used at hunting clubs, but should not be stored in the homes of civilians.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that people really defend the 2nd amendment not so much because they are obsessed with guns (although some are) but more of the fact that they don't want the government taking away any of their constitutional right, and in this case it is owning guns. As a person who usually stands with the side of personal liberties I can see where these people are coming from (although some people, like the guy on the Piers Morgan show are just crazy). But, I do agree that we need bans of assault weapons and stricter gun laws, but I wouldn't be so quick to discredit those who defend the 2nd amendment.

    ReplyDelete