This topic contains 12 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 11 months, 3 weeks ago.
November 5, 2017 at 10:28 pm #1962
This week’s articles are “After Texas church rampage, ‘thoughts and prayers’ leave gun control side frustrated” by Nicole Cobler and Todd J. Gillman, “The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control)” by Jeffrey Goldberg and “11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States” These three articles discuss the ongoing debate and controversy over gun control. This debate has become even more pertinent and topical with the shooting in Texas this Sunday. What do you think should be done right now? What do you think should be done overall? Come discuss on our forums with other HP MUNC members.
Please keep all discussion civil.November 5, 2017 at 10:49 pm #1970
Gun control is by far the most frustrating topic of discussion because of our governments inability to remain anything but stagnant on the issue no matter no many lives are lost. No matter how many atrocities and mass murders we see, no matter how many reasons we come up with to have more comprehensive gun control, we cannot expect to see change. Dan Hodges summed it up best when he said, “In retrospect, Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over”.November 5, 2017 at 11:15 pm #1973
I agree with both sides to an extent. NRA seems to have a point, if we are legally promised the right to guns and this is the home of freedom, and one freedom if gun ownership, it makes sense that we should be allowed them. On the other hand people who have the desire to get such items for mass murder probably shouldn’t get them. Therefore we should have stricter control, if there is nothing wrong with you or your intent you will get a gun regardless. If there is an alternate motive then you don’t get a gun. Now the real argument shouldn’t be safeguards, those should be in place, it should be on where the cut off is on the right to own guns, just like free speech has limits where is the limit on gun ownership?November 6, 2017 at 12:02 am #1974
I disagree very strongly with Marzia and somewhat with Max. Benjamin Franklin once said something like, “Those that would trade their freedom for their protection deserve neither.” This is a simple to understand and apply to the context of guns and is an early demonstration of Americans’ quintessential belief in self preservation, independence from large government, and so forth.
Part of the reason that most compromise is impossible with restricting what firearms left are still legal is that it is getting really inconvenient to own a gun, almost like the government wants its citizens disarmed for something… Anyway, the media and left still blames fully automatic assault weapons (assault weapon: a weapon used to assault someone, not a semi-automatic .223) for massed shootings and stuff like that. 1. Fully automatic weapons have been nearly illegal and require excessive licensing, point is they haven’t been convenient/accessible to murderers. 2. Over 80% of crime committed with guns is done by use of handgun. 3. A majority of these crimes happen in consistently Democratic cities. 4. Violent crime has been on a constant decline in America despite continuous gun ownership increases.
Fun fact and kind of unrelated to the last few points: The Second Amendment originally permitted a man (American, duh) to purchase about 40 cannons to arm his merchant ship with. This is according to one of its writers, President Madison who personally explained saying that the right to self-preservation should be absolute from foreign and domestic enemies that seek to strip it away. In this case it was pirates that justified artillery or arming a merchant vessel to be nearly equally to that of a fifth rate Ship of the Line. Considering that, is it so far of a stretch to say that a law abiding citizen cannot own a full auto 9mm?
I find that many people who appose guns know or understand very little about them. They say that guns make them nervous or that they think only paranoid rednecks like Alex Jones need a gun to compensate for something (paraphrasing). It is one thing to say that there is a practical way to limit WHO possesses a firearm and to limit some of the heftier guns to firing ranges, it is another to say that because of adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, and muzzle breaks that certain AR-15’s must be banned (I bet without Googling it, most if not all of you cannot tell me what the AR in AR-15 stands for). This lack of knowledge, ignorance, and ineptitude may result in hilarious montages of politicians failing to make sense while talking about guns. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI9tov6A2DI and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0
Even in this last shooting, it was apparent that while a man filled with so much evil could do great harm with a gun, another man could do so much good with a similar device. From an article I quickly saw on BBC this morning, it said that a man in the area responded by shooting at the killer and apparently scared him off enough that he didn’t quite finish. Also, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center, since 1950, over 98% of all shootings have happened within gun free zones. Some of that may have been by convenience, but obviously, it is easier to kill the unarmed than the potentially armed and jumpy civilian.
This would likely turn into a very long rant because I have a lot to say about this topic as it is potentially the most important to me and the main reason why I started getting involved in politics, so if you have any further questions, points, comments, rants, etc., just see me in person. I promise I might not shoot.November 6, 2017 at 12:24 am #1975
Ill respond to the rest later, but the quote is out of context and if I know it I can only assume you do too, since you know history better than me: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-saidNovember 6, 2017 at 12:31 am #1976
Yes, I know that the quote isn’t specifically about guns, however neither is the argument to keep guns. Guns happen to be the mean for the maintenance of individual liberty. If it was through something else, then that would hold the same vociferous defense.November 6, 2017 at 1:06 am #1977
A reliance on guns for the protection of our own personal liberty is absurd. I believe in the right to own them, but the fact that the government, with police or with legal power, cannot uphold the right for every person to believe and speak as they wish (maybe not act cause then we get into some bad stuff) is absurd. If we can’t trust a government of the people to protect us, what can we trust the government to do? Enforce your right to gun ownership? That seems like a double standard. Sure there are some fringe cases were the government can’t protect you, hence people, as I said, should be allowed to own guns. But a lack of regulation at the justification of protection is ridiculous. You mentioned handgun crimes, I don’t know the specifics but maybe we should have more regulations there? If you follow the law, and are a stable person, gun ownership should be your right. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be regulation or safeguards in place.
Also your comment on the cannon is unbelievably stupid. I don’t wanna be like an ass(donkey [is hpmunc rated pg?]), but come one? Some guy had cannons on a merchant ship so we should be allowed to own any gun? Just because something was deemed acceptable at the time doesn’t mean its ok now. Racism, sexism, other isms, all deemed to be acceptable practices. Part of the USA is change, the fact that we should be constantly evolving and changing. I think people should be allowed guns, but just because a purposely vague amendment grants us that freedom doesn’t mean we should be allowed endless freedom in this area. Even freedom of speech, something I have very strong feelings about keeping as open as possible has limits. And words can’t even directly harm you in the way a gun can. Why would a tool of immense killing potential merit no control? But I mean come on, you know that cannon thing wouldn’t actually hold up today? No senator is going around saying “SOME GUY 200 YEARS AGO HAD CANNONS!!! GIVE EVERYONE THE GUNS!” If a senator actually said that I owe you 2 dollars (has to be verbatim and said in the past)November 6, 2017 at 1:13 am #1978
I dont remember how to edit posts but i said
“Racism, sexism, other isms, all deemed to be acceptable practices”
I mean that those WERE all deemed to be acceptable but arent nowNovember 6, 2017 at 8:24 am #1979
There are things that should evolve with time, however, if it wasn’t broken, why fix it? Racism and the right to bear arms have nothing to do with each other. Additionally, while I agree that the real debate should be prevention of access to firearms for a certain people (violent criminals, mentally ill, potential terrorists, etc), the types of firearms that one should be able to own without any sort of licensing I think has gone way to far. I also don’t think you understand that the Second Amendment is originally designed not because of constant distrust in the government but more so fear that the government could become untrustworthy. Couple of reasons for that. Dictators have always started by stripping the ability of the citizens to own any kind of firearms. This allows the tyrannical to do whatever they want with much less dangerous opposition. However, if the populous is armed, then the government has a much harder time with doing things like rounding up the Jews or displacing the Chechen people. For our government, it also serves to protect the other amendments like freedom of speech, right to refuse quartering soldiers in a time of peace (not that that’s a heavily contested issue), and so forth. What good is a right if the people should have no means of enforcing it?November 6, 2017 at 8:27 am #1980
Also, I think you might get a chuckle out of this.
November 6, 2017 at 5:24 pm #1981
I have actually seen that video before, I found that animator back during RMC in 9th grade, I think his videos a quite amusing even if he does make some statements I disagree with and I feel some of his points make too much of a logical jump. But at the very least he is quite funny at times.November 6, 2017 at 7:12 pm #1982
Finally, agreement.November 6, 2017 at 7:14 pm #1983
Though much like you he can be inflammatory at times, and I think a youtube video is a bad form of argument, just assertions with no way to counter them (I guess youtube comments but come on). On the other hand his animation style goes well with the type of video he makes
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.