You Can’t Win The Gun Control Debate

While watching an episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit about American gun laws I realized that it is impossible to win the debate on gun control. For those of you who don’t know about the gun control debate there are two sides. The people who want guns removed from the stores and streets of america and the people who say it is their constitutional right to bear arms so there should be no laws on guns.

It is impossible to prove either side right.

The people who want to keep guns say that the founding fathers wrote the “Right to bear arms”, also known as the second amendment, in to the constitution and therefore Americans should always be allowed to walk into K-mart, or wherever you buy guns, and purchase a gun. The main reason for this is self defense. The way of thinking is “if someone points a gun at me then I’m going to need something to defend myself with” and then to people who say guns are dangerous they say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Yeah, that may be true but if the person doesn’t have a gun then it makes it harder for them to kill you doesn’t it?

The people against guns say that if guns were banned then the amount of gun crime would go down. And then the people who want guns say “but how am I going to defend myself from those people who still have guns?’ the thing is guns are dangerous no matter who has them. Hundreds of people are killed every year because they got hold of a gun that should have been locked up and accidentally shot themselves. Many of these are kids. It doesn’t matter if you ban guns or keep them legal, people are always going to find ways to get guns and shoot other people. Everywhere in the world where guns are illegal there are still gun crimes they are just less frequent because it is nearly impossible to get them.

I’m not going to take sides on this debate because I’m not American and not directly exposed to guns and I hope I never have to be. I just want to leave you with this one thought. What kind of fathers give their children guns?


, , ,

  1. #1 by E. Russon on July 8, 2010 - 21:00

    A very good friend of mine who was a New England Democrat said to me one day “I used to believe in gun control after Kent State. Now I know what the government’s all about, there is no way they are going to take away my right to bear arms.” This was a lady who went to Woodstock, worked on the McGovern campaign and came to Canada with her draft dodger husband. You met her at one of Victor’s parties where she made him an SCA costume.

  2. #2 by Nicholas on July 8, 2010 - 11:14

    “In a way it is self defence against the government.”

    Exactly. Couldn’t have put it any better myself.

  3. #3 by Nicholas on July 7, 2010 - 14:28

    Self-defence isn’t actually the reason the right to bear arms was written into the US Constitution. The right to bear arms is the way they tried to ensure against a new tyrannical government replacing the one they’d just overthrown (our own dearly beloved King George the-not-quite-sane-at-the-moment). As that radical firebrand Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

    Sic semper tyrannis

    • #4 by willpenman on July 7, 2010 - 21:56

      These words have been debated for years. Something about a comma. True that is the way it was written but many people will tell you they need guns for self defence. In a way it is self defence against the government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: