Monday Matters - Final

For most mondays of recent memory, I have been undertaking research on the highly debated topic of gun control. I think now I have gathered enough information regarding the subject to be able to insert my own commentary into the dispute.

In my opinion, gun control should be implemented in the United States. I say the United States, for obviously that is where the issue of guns is most relevant, for the country currently grants citizens the 'right to bear arms'. By gun control I do not to intend to stand for the complete eradication of guns for the people, only simply, a more reasonable, limit on gun ownership. The idea of gun control, is only a means to lower the horrific gun violence in the country; guns should be regulated for the sake of the people.

They are many arguments against gun control. This is rather peculiar in my opinion. For the counter arguments are often quite remarkable. The opposition to gun control have a wide vary of arguments, almost all of which happen to be quite so ever wrong. A common argument, is that the right to gun ownership, is detailed in the constitution and therefore can not be questioned. As I explained in my post last monday with the help of a witty cartoon, the constitution was written decades ago, and the current state of the nation is not what the founding fathers envisioned. Furthermore, the constitution originally entailed slavery. So, how is it exactly that the constitution can't be altered? Guns were originally intended as a checks and balance measure on the government, to assert that the people remain on an equal playing field. Also in my post monday, a cartoon from an artist known as Toles, wisely depicts a scoreboard of the number of tyrants overthrown to the number of killings of innocents; naturally it's a blowout. One point of view, detailed in my "anti-gun control" blog post, is a more sophisticated take on the most common counter argument: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Granderson, the man who wrote the article, says that all gun-massacres are lumped together, in an attempt to play "on the nation's emotions." While it may be true that pro gun-regulation arguments appeal to pathos, the truth is the reason they appeal to pathos, is because they should. I mean people wouldn't be feeling so emotional, if it wasn't for all these massacres. One last argument is that, "what stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun." Now that's all great and all, until you consider when was the last time a shooting incident was avoided because there was "a good guy with a gun"? Nada. Unless you consider the movies I guess, which is where the anti-gun control proponents seem to reside actually.

Gun control should be implemented as a measure to contain violence, it's as simple as that. Gun massacres happen all too often, in schools to military bases, they are rampant. There are no powerful counter arguments, but how could you counter mass murders anyways.