During this past week, our World Politics class engaged in discussing security and its relevance in International relations. When Professor Jackson showed us a website which sold varieties of guns ranging from pistols to automatic machine guns, our discussion turned into a segment on gun control.
On this particular subject the students carried diverse opinions due to its controversial nature. I personally do not favor gun control as it will not stop gun-related violence from occurring. One reason being that criminals can still get weapons from from the black market (it does exist) and sneak weapons across the state borders for profit. This is similar to the War on Drugs where after the ban on illegal drugs, certain drugs like cocaine saw its profit value jump from piratically nothing to over triple its original cost. This also occurred during the prohibition where criminal mobs sold illegal alcohol for grand profits. This exact scenario would happen to us if we ban guns.
Another issue I had in the debate is how certain people in my group argue for gun control based upon the place they grew up like Chicago. I'm from Cincinnati, Ohio where racial tensions are still high and this city was the birthplace of notorious killer Charles Manson so do not think that those arguing for gun rights grew up in peaceful neighborhoods. Another student who will remain nameless said that "if a criminal enters a store with an automatic weapon he is unlikely to kill someone". WRONG!!! That 100% wrong because someone who goes around with an AK-47 in his bag is more likely to kill someone because he has spare ammunition to kill anyone who tries to stop him.
What these gun control fail to consider is that people in violent communities need these guns for protection. For example, in towns where Latino or African American gangs are going around attacking each other, civilians need to be well armed for the police are unlikely to show up in time to stop the violent crime from occurring. Gun control does not stop criminals, it makes civilians open for attack.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This is absurd.
First of all, I stated my case regarding Chicago because it's what I know and I have followed the aggressive efforts of the CPD and community groups to combat shootings. If you read my blog post, it goes extensively into a wide array of programs that have proven effective. I am in no way saying that Cincinatti does not have its fair share of violence. I'm not sure if you feel Cincinatti's crime rate somehow enhances your "street cred", but I personally take pride in the declining murder rate in Chicago. On a side note, Charles Manson was not a racial killer, and he did not commit his crimes in Cincinatti.
Second, you state that the liklihood of a criminal with an automatic weapon in the process of robbing a store is very high. Only a moron would unload a magazine into unarmed people, as even criminals realize that penalities for such action dramatically increase their odds in being caught and prosecuted severely. A typical robbery lasts a couple minutes at most. The weapon is used to coerce employees to act according to the criminal's will, not to unload a clip into the customers of the local 7-Eleven. Hostage situations and other standoffs are rare and occur when the robbery is somehow foiled and arrest seems imminent. However, these are rare cases and must be treated as so.
Last, I find your assertion that African American and Latino gangs are out to get white people naive at best, racist at the worst. As my blog post states, the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by one race against a member of the same race. Still, race should be considered irrelevant because it is socio-economic conditions that determine crime rates. There are white gangs and asian gangs as well, and membership often coorelates to areas with few jobs and educational opportunities. With no means of advancement in their communities, sometimes people sell drugs or do something else illegal to make ends meet.
Every person arming themselves to the teeth does not make for a safer society. This Rambo mentality I find fails to take into account the high rates of homicide due to alcohol abuse, drug use, and domestic violence. Let the law do its job, yes criminals shall always exist, but so will law enforement. Taking assault weapons out of the hands of citizens and renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban would benefit society and ensure military-grade firepower is not readily available to everyone.
I never like to touch the subject of racism because it's often blown out of proportion by overly sensitive people looking for a cause. However, I feel compelled to point out how your repetition in class (and this blog) of how Caucasians need to arm themselves from the onslaught of Latino and African American gang warfare is irrational. Seattle has it's fair share of gang activity and believe it or not our two biggest gangs are Asian and Jewish.
But we might be on the same page with opinions on gun ownership.
"Another student who will remain nameless said that "if a criminal enters a store with an automatic weapon he is unlikely to kill someone". WRONG!!! That 100% wrong because someone who goes around with an AK-47 in his bag is more likely to kill someone because he has spare ammunition to kill anyone who tries to stop him."
No cause like I totally agree cause of how when in call of duty i run out of ammo trying to kill those damn nazis and so I can't kill as many cause i have no more ammo and it sucks so like yeah less ammo makes less people die I agree with you
i am being slightly facetious
As the Caucasian person who rooms with minorities, I do not feel threatened. In situations where I am the minority I do not worry about my physical security because that is not realistic. When I visited a jail last year for a crime and justice class, I was not more frightened in the gang-unit than in the regular areas of the prison. My fear level was the same around all the murderers, it did not change based on the ethnicity of the person.
Your point regarding the ban on the illegal trafficking of weapons is a very possible outcome. I agree that such a ban would not be entirely effective in eliminating the ownership of firearms, but I do think that it would be one step in the direction of reducing their presence in America. I am not sure how black markets operate, but I assume that a newly enacted law prohibiting gun ownership would, at the very least, deter people from seeking these weapons. There is a difference between exercising a perceived right and intentionally breaking the law.
My point on growing up in Chicago was simply to point out that gun violence is not confined to an area based on economic, geographic, or ethnic reasons. Dekalb, Illinois is practically farmland. The shooter was from University of Illinois at Ubana-Champaign, which is also surrounded by agricultural land. The differences between Dekalb and Chicago are as diverse as Wasilla, Alaska is to NYC. Population density is not a factor in gun violence, and this issue is certainly not a competition in which city, Chicago or Cincinnati, is more badass (I'm not sure where the appeal would be for such a contest).
Charles Manson seems like a pretty messed up dude. I really don't have a comment on him, except to say that such individuals are living examples of why guns should not be so readily available-an insane person can easily obtain a weapon and go on a rampage. People like Manson are the reason why we should have stricter gun control laws.
While a substantial number of younger African American and Latino males from impoverished economic backgrounds and who live in rougher urban areas tend to be involved in street gangs, their involvement is less because of ethnicity and more because they have not been presented with the same opportunities that we have. I do not mean to write an editorial, but this is a social problem that we must deal with if we wish to improve our society.
Additionally, I do not think that a criminal would choose to kill someone simply because he or she has an excess of ammunition. There are certainly individuals who have done so (as stated before: NIU, Columbine, Virginia Tech), but such individuals are insane and outside of societal convention. More often, criminals are committing crimes to obtain necessary items for their own gain, not to bust a cap in innocent bystanders.
To wrap up, 14 minutes before the time of this writing, 2 students were shot at the University of Central Arkansas. I truly hate to politicize such tragic events, but this is important: The point that I have been trying to make has been proven again tonight. Because of our lack of gun control laws, 2 more people have now been murdered. I rest my case.
"Another student who will remain nameless said that "if a criminal enters a store with an automatic weapon he is unlikely to kill someone". WRONG!!! That 100% wrong because someone who goes around with an AK-47 in his bag is more likely to kill someone because he has spare ammunition to kill anyone who tries to stop him."
Well, looks like someone's never held up a bank before.
For one, shooting up the place is downright uneconomical. A decent handgun can put you out a couple hundred dollars, an assault rifle a few thousand. Then there's the bullets: a Time Magazine interview with a Palestinian gun smuggler revealed the cost of a round of AK-47 ammunition to normally be around $8.00 US. If that's the asking price in a third-world conflict zone, imagine what it must be here in America. Now, even when you factor in the profit from, say, a convenience store heist, you barely break even. It doesn't make sense to have to replace the ammunition after each job, and you don't want to overuse your weapon and have to obtain a new one, either.
Then there's the crime scene. Spraying bullets everywhere leaves a whole lot of physical evidence both in the store, on the gun, and on you. Remember, each bullet can be traced back to the make and model of the gun, and in many cases can lead to the exact gun itself. Firing shots also leaves a residue on the gun, so anyone who inspects the weapon can tell if it's been fired. Fingerprints can also be lifted from the gun. Gunpowder from the discharge of bullets can also get on your clothes, which serve as additional evidence if you're picked up immediately. Also, if you put everyone on ice, you’ll have to go through everyone’s belongings and the cash register by yourself, which takes time and leaves physical evidence everywhere.
And lastly, there’s the matter of the federales. A simple convenience store holdup goes almost unregistered nowadays, especially in a large city, and police probably won’t look into it extensively if you keep a low profile and only take cash and replaceable merchandise. But if you knock off a couple of people, you’re liable to get the FBI involved, and trust me, they’re much better at solving crimes than the local cops. Plus, as Seamus mentioned, once you’re caught, you’ve got a murder rap on your hands, which is significantly more severe than a simple armed robbery.
Trust me, man, you’re best off keepin' your trigger finger under control.
Here are a few weapons I have issue with people owning. I will breifly list below a few models I don't believe should be owned by common citizens (nowhere near a complete list), is this necessary for personal protection? Also consider sniper rifles and suppressors, clearly these should only be available to law enforcement and military.
MP5, AK47, Galil, Tec-9, Uzi, Steyr AUG, SIG SG 550, Heckler & Koch G36, M16, M4 carbine, QBZ-95, FAMAS, and many other models
Post a Comment