Sunday, October 4, 2015
Let me hear a new gun control law
Other than Trump's and Jeb Bush's responses to the Oregon shooting and gun control laws, the rest of the GOP candidates have a similar take on the issue.
Marco Rubio has brought up the argument that only law abiding citizens will follow gun laws, not the criminals, and that there is no evidence that new gun control laws will prevent mass shootings such as Sandy Hook and Oregon. Where is the evidence that new control laws WON'T prevent mass shootings? Is it better to sit back and let these incidents continue with no resolution? "Passing more gun control laws would simply prevent law abiding people from being able to defend themselves", yet passing gun control laws would also attempt to reduce the amount of people who are mentally challenged from owning a gun, therefore canceling out why law abiding citizens would need a gun in the first place.
Mike Huckabee's response to this issue is that he is waiting for someone to tell him what new gun control law can be passed in order to prevent mass shootings. He makes the argument that guns should be in the hands of trained professionals and well trained citizens. How will we tell apart a well trained citizen from a mentally challenged one? ....a background check?
Ben Carson has the same argument as Marco Rubio, with a little tweak. Instead of saying criminals won't follow new gun control laws he says they "won't work for the crazies". Carly Fiorina suggests to enforce het gun control laws we already have and John Kasich believes that if you take guns away from the people who already have them, then the people who cause these mass shootings will still have their weapons.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/huckabee-rubio-carson-republican-candidates-gun-laws/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These Republican candidates aren't thinking in terms of the tragedy that just occurred, or of the tragedies that have occurred in the past, but rather of their voting population. Their supporters come generally from red states, and in those states, it would be strange NOT walking around holding a gun. The thing about guns is that mass media has desensitized us to its violence. Not just in the news, but in TV shows and movies as well. Carson and Rubio say that even if stricter gun control laws were in place, it wouldn't stop the "crazies" or the criminals. But it would make it a lot harder to kill someone without the assistance of a firearm, would it not? People will still get hurt or killed, because unfortunately, that's just human nature. It's tragic, but it's definitely not as tragic as when a man can walk into an elementary school and slaughter over a dozen kids. Or when a man can walk into a movie theater and kill indiscriminately. Or when a man can target people because of their race, or because of the religion they follow. It would make it pretty darn hard for them to do what they've done if they didn't have the access to firearms. So it's time for the GOP candidates to stop covering their eyes and ears and face the facts: the second amendment MUST be amended for the well-being of the people and the security of the future of this nation.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Rubio's statements. Stricter gun control laws aren't designed to prevent innocent people from protecting themselves. If they are as much of an upstanding citizen as they are portrayed, they should have no issues passing the background checks and other necessary precautions. The enforcement of the gun control laws will, however, decrease the amount of people who should not be allowed to purchase guns from bypassing the system and getting them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUpon first glance, I can see why the candidates said what they said. I mean, why would a criminal/ would-be criminal abide by a stricter gun law, if they're already breaking the law in the first place? Thinking about it this way, I can see how the stricter gun laws would actually place limitations on how a law abiding citizen would defend themselves. However, that does not mean that I agree. To me, a stricter gun law would help tremendously. If a law abiding citizen were to apply for a gun license, the stricter laws would not affect them as much since they should have no issues in getting past the various tests/checks. I believe that stricter gun laws would actually decrease the chances of someone who should not be able to get a gun (like someone with a mental illness) obtain one and go on a potential rampage. So while the statements of the candidates do make some sort of sense, I believe that its just pure exaggeration on their part, and the stricter laws would do more good than harm.
ReplyDeleteI can see their point that gun control laws will not prevent mass shootings. If someone wanted to get a hold of a gun, they will. The fact that people will be able to protect themselves in a situation like this does actually make sense. As much as I usually supported the idea that gun control laws are necessary, thinking about it this way makes plenty of sense. Although I do think the republicans make their point about having more protection, who says someone holding a gun will not act upon anger in the heat of the moment? Making it that anybody can hold a gun can just give so many people too much power in the wrong situation. There is no one clear answer to control the situations because there is just too many ifs and buts.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I can see what the Republicans mean when they say that if a person was really bent on killing or using the gun for wrong purposes, stricter gun laws will be no help, I still disagree with the points they make. When Marco Rubio and Ben Carson say that only law abiding people will follow gun laws. If stricter gun laws were passed and enforced, even if criminals did not follow them, with the addition of background checks and other provisions, it would be at least more difficult for them to get their hands on a weapon. And like Cerlina said, where does Marco Rubio find that there is no evidence that gun laws would not prevent these shootings? If we never tried passing stricter gun laws to prevent mass gun shootings, we will never be able to know if they really can prevent them.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I find with the Republicans' stance on gun control is that they make their claim based on how stricter gun control will affect only a portion of the American people - those who already own guns. Considering the fact that not all Americans own guns, wouldn't it be reasonable to protect all of the American people and stop making it so easy for anyone to go and get a gun? While I do agree that it would be impractical and unreasonable to force everyone to get background checks before purchasing a gun (because that would give the federal government way too much power, and people would never agree to it), I believe that the regulations we have right now are either too lax or are not being enforced properly. We need to find a balance so that the American people would be protected from any further mass shootings but would still feel that their 2nd amendment rights are being respected.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that it would be extremely difficult, to retroactively enforce new gun laws, I still believe that reforms in some form is necessary. The statistics shows it. The fact that there has been more shootings than amount of days in 2015 so far is ridiculous and it clearly shows that there is some problem in our current gun laws and that it needs to be changed.
ReplyDelete