The Problem with Gun Control

After what happened at Sandy Hook in December the United States has been at war with itself. The idea of controlling guns was simply repugnant to gun toting Conservatives. On the other hand, Liberals simply refused to sit idly by while semi-automatic weapons were still in circulation. And the war had begun. With a newly re-elected President Obama, and Senator Dianne Feinstein's new Assault Weapons Ban we came to a great divide in America once again.

But behind all the rhetoric and talking points there are real philosophical issues with controlling guns. For one, living in a free society comes with the risk of negative things happening. This means that personal responsibility has to be first and foremost. In our reality, we are programmed to believe that we need the government in our life to make us safe. So people willingly give in to the idea that certain kinds of guns are the reason people kill each other. But is that really the case? Does violence have more to do with a natural disposition of human beings rather than certain weapons that are available?

Does anyone really believe that if AR-15s weren't available that would put an end to all mass killings? Is that a reasonable belief? Well, the facts say no. In 1927 one of the deadliest mass killings in US history occurred. A man who worked at the local school set off a series of explosions under the school and his home. A total of 45 individuals were killed, including 38 children. None of whom were killed with guns. The man was revengeful and was not deterred by the law that said, if you kill people you will go to jail for the rest of your life and/or be executed. This event was a tragedy and should have never happened, but it did. The idea that any law or legislative act will prevent people from killing one another is illogical.

Why Gun Laws are Ridiculous

Gun laws are put in place to protect regular citizens from criminals. However, the definition of a criminal is a person who has committed a crime. A crime is an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law. So by definition a criminal will never follow the law. The only 100% way to force the elimination of crime is to completely do away with all guns, knifes, and any other blunt or sharp object. Of course, you would also have to do away with any explosive chemicals, make furniture out of bubble wrap, and also make it illegal to own a vehicle, because all of these are "weapons" in the wrong hands. 
Liberals like to argue that gun laws will cut down the frequency of gun homicides. While that might be true, wouldn't other forms of murder simply go up?

Freedom vs Coercion

There is no better word for Senator Feinstein's bill other than, coercion. The United States claims to be land of the free home of the brave, but once again the gun control debate proves that we aren't truly free in this country. We are ruled by what the majority wants rather than the freedom of the individual. We are subject to laws we may have never agreed to, and are constantly reminded how every aspect of our lives should conform to what the majority decides is 'normal'. If and when we step outside these lines we are immediately punished even when we do no harm to anyone else. How is that free? I beg for anyone to answer that question..

Want to find out how extensive Feinstein's bill is? Check out the link.. Assault Weapons Ban Bill