Something that you must know about me before I begin this post; I am a pragmatist. Why do I mention this? Because I want you to know that I realize that there will always be crime. People are depraved. If guns were eliminated in the U.S., it would only lead to a pretty drastic increase in knife-related deaths. However, being the pragmatist that I am, I am still floored by the reality that the while the populations of England, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, and Australia add up to roughly the population of the U.S., they have only 10% of our gun-related deaths. Is this because they are less violent, less depraved, less homicidal people? Or is this because guns are outlawed for private ownership?
I am not making an argument for gun illegality. As the well known statement goes, "If guns are criminalized, only criminals children will accidentally shoot themselves in the face." That may not be it, but it is something like it.
Guns are out there and they are a part of our culture, that isn't going to change. However, stricter regulation of guns and their sale must be put in place.
This week, the supreme court ruled against the District of Columbia's handgun ban. This ruling, 5-4 along party lines, means that a ban that has dramatically reduced gun deaths within one of the most crime-heavy metropolitan areas of the U.S. is not null and void. While that seems ridiculous, the worst part is how fundamentally that the supreme court perverted the second amendment to arrive at such a conclusion. Gun ownership is legal in the U.S. for one reason and one reason alone, for the purpose of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Not my words, but those of the framers of the constitution. I don't believe that hunting, recreation, or family heirlooms are mentioned.
Anyways, I am just ranting now, so I will stop.
What do you think about all this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah, the way the second ammendment is routinely ripped from its historical context is always amazing to me.
As for me, I make a personal, moral decision not to own a gun. I don't feel that I should be able to enforce my moral decision on others. But, there are clearly sensible middle roads between legalization of firearms and a complete free for all when it comes to them.
I actually Moore's arguments about gun violence in Bowling for Columbine are very effective, objective, and do a good job about not being tied to political dogma (but try convincing a gun nut of that).
I agree, with Washington D.C. having the highest murder rate in the country, overturning a law that was actually bringing those numbers down is a tragedy. (I also don't believe the law was unconstitutional.)
Post a Comment