http://www.a-human-right.com/
This website I found first appears to show two sides to the debate over gun control, guns being seen as a "liability" and "a useful tool".Trying to find a website which was anti-gun control, I clicked on "liability", and it let me to a questionairre about general gun ownership and the use of guns. I tried to put myself in the mindset of an American to complete it. It struck me as quite biased, as it used phrases like "morally correct", appealing to the conscience of the American people. It describes using a gun as a necessity, like in the question, "If no police officer is present is it morally correct for the innocent victim to shoot to protect self or dependents from an attack?". This reminded me of the lecture where it's argued that if an American were feeling threatened, they should call for a pizza rather than the police, because it'd get there quicker. The average American would generally defend themselves and/or their families by use of firearms.
"Some say that just owning a gun would make you a violent person; if I just had a handgun, I would:
- go shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant
- go shoot up the nearest Army base
- kill someone I know next time I get angry
- None of the above, I would continue to be a peaceful person
- act even more politely than before so as to avoid confrontation"
This makes me think that the website is trying to promote guns by telling people what a 'violent' person would do with a gun, and so encouraging Americans not to do the same, and warning them that if they had a gun they may be able to lessen the damage done by the people who go and "shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant". This also made me think about the amount of guns owned in America, and that's only a legal count, if people own guns illegally now, then if they are banned, more people will own them illegally. I don't think it will make that much of a difference. These so called 'psychopaths' will continue to be psychopaths regardless of the legality and accessibility of guns.
At the end of the questionnaire it states,
"If your elected officials do not trust you with firearms, unrestricted access to books and the Internet, or with other personal choices do you think they represent you well? What steps can you take to regain your freedom?" This struck me especially, as Americans see owning guns as being free, and if the government banned them, they consider it a breach of their own personal freedom, something quite odd to an outsider but I would guess absolutely normal to an American who feels this way.
Following the questionnaire, which, according to the link is meant to be anti-gun control, it gives the reader lots of information about guns, stating their three purposes, least important being sporting, then hunting, and the most important use - self defence. Even though it is meant to be the "liability" side of the website, all the site is doing is defending guns against people who have criticised them, by giving an explanation that twists the viewpoint completely. Hence the two sides of the site merge into one pro-gun control rant. It talks about the "proud heritage of gun control", and states that "for most gun owners, personal liberty is as much an ethos as Christianity of Judaism". Both the choices "liability" and "a useful tool" endup at the same page, about self defence. The links at the bottom of the website lead to things like, "becoming a fun owner", "art of the arms", "effective guns" and "necessary evil".
http://www.cphv.org/
This website is only anti-gun crime because it is run by people who have been severely affected by gun crime, so people who have experience with the mis-use of guns. The Brady Centre itself was started in 1974 by Mark Borinsky, who was robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, and Pete Shields, who's 23 year old son was murdered in 1974, became Chairman in 1978. In 2001 it was named after Jim Brady, President Reagan's press secretary. He was nearly killed and permanently disabled as a result of an assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981, and has since led efforts for stricter handgun control in America. The entire website is trying to appeal to people on a personal level, "fighting for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and the community". It is implying that nobody is safe, and the website itself also gives lots of statistics about gun control, which also makes it more personal to the reader because they can see how much the lack of gun-control affects people on a personal level. The main point that the website makes is "There are too many victims of gun violence because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America".
I can agree with both sides of the argument, both seeing a gun as a form of self defence and as a dangerous weapon which shouldn't be taken lightly. There is no way of solving the issue however, because even if the government did make tighter laws on gun control, people will still obtain them illegally, especially criminals, and therefore gun-crime will still exist. The only solution in a way, is to ban guns completely in America, but that will never happen because again, they can be obtained illegally and there would be a lot of uproar over personal rights and freedom. Those who have been affected personally obviously have a strong view on it, however I think it is an ongoing problem and will continue to be, because there is no real solution to the problem. If you take away the guns, these violent people will find something else to use as a weapon; there isn't really an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment