This iReport is part of an assignment:
Gun control debate: Background checks
About this iReport
- Posted January 12, 2013 by
- DallasJulian Follow
Location
Dallas, Texas
Dallas, Texas
Assignment
 |
The Fallacy of the Current Gun Control Debate
The debate occurring in our country in light of recent tragedies is an important one, but contains inherent flaws. The debate is based on a strong emotional response to incidents we cannot begin to wrap our heads around, but we must begin to apply logic towards the topic if our ultimate goal is to limit gun violence and save lives in our nation.
The aim of my comments is not to address the fundamental issue of whether or not gun ownership should have limits or certain oversight mechanisms, but to raise a question about the particular direction the debate is going. I still have many questions myself about some of those larger issues.
The fundamental flaw I see in the direction of the present conversation is the targeted focus on "assault weapons." These weapons respond to the emotions of many people because of their limited use in these horrific sensational mass killings. The reality is that handguns kill many times more people in this country, and do so every hour of every day.
My understanding of the intent of the Founding Fathers in crafting the Second Amendment is that they wanted to secure a democracy free from the threat of tyranny by providing for an armed populace - a populace with a fighting chance of defending themselves from military domination or foreign oppression. This also provides for a population that can protect their own communities in times of local or regional upheaval. Another fundamental background attitude was that Americans were accustomed to the freedom to hunt game for their own sustenance, without kings and aristocrats reserving hunting as their exclusive right.
Based on the above intentions, the logical modern weapons to defend against military occupation and foreign invasion, as well as protect neighborhoods and hunt game, are accurate long distance rifles with repeated fire capabilities and possible large capacity ammunition cartridges - so-called 'assault weapons.' Perhaps this is even why we have accepted the largest gun owners' lobby calling itself the National Rifle Association.
The weapons that don't fit the bill for these priorities are handguns - pistols.
Handguns statistically and logically are more likely to be involved in accidents and crimes of passion, as well as be surreptitiously carried into facilities where they don't belong. I personally would never carry a handgun or keep one in my home - it's simply too easy to let it fall into the hands of a child, be used quickly in a passionate moment, or be used against me when someone comes within its range.
Let's all keep talking about the nature and place of guns in our society, but let's set some emotion aside and discuss the realities, so that if we take actions they will be the ones that save the most lives.
The aim of my comments is not to address the fundamental issue of whether or not gun ownership should have limits or certain oversight mechanisms, but to raise a question about the particular direction the debate is going. I still have many questions myself about some of those larger issues.
The fundamental flaw I see in the direction of the present conversation is the targeted focus on "assault weapons." These weapons respond to the emotions of many people because of their limited use in these horrific sensational mass killings. The reality is that handguns kill many times more people in this country, and do so every hour of every day.
My understanding of the intent of the Founding Fathers in crafting the Second Amendment is that they wanted to secure a democracy free from the threat of tyranny by providing for an armed populace - a populace with a fighting chance of defending themselves from military domination or foreign oppression. This also provides for a population that can protect their own communities in times of local or regional upheaval. Another fundamental background attitude was that Americans were accustomed to the freedom to hunt game for their own sustenance, without kings and aristocrats reserving hunting as their exclusive right.
Based on the above intentions, the logical modern weapons to defend against military occupation and foreign invasion, as well as protect neighborhoods and hunt game, are accurate long distance rifles with repeated fire capabilities and possible large capacity ammunition cartridges - so-called 'assault weapons.' Perhaps this is even why we have accepted the largest gun owners' lobby calling itself the National Rifle Association.
The weapons that don't fit the bill for these priorities are handguns - pistols.
Handguns statistically and logically are more likely to be involved in accidents and crimes of passion, as well as be surreptitiously carried into facilities where they don't belong. I personally would never carry a handgun or keep one in my home - it's simply too easy to let it fall into the hands of a child, be used quickly in a passionate moment, or be used against me when someone comes within its range.
Let's all keep talking about the nature and place of guns in our society, but let's set some emotion aside and discuss the realities, so that if we take actions they will be the ones that save the most lives.
- TAGS:
- GROUPS:
What do you think of this story?
Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
Be and editor! Choose an option below:
More from this assignment - Gun control debate: Background checks
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.
© 2013 Cable News Network. 
Comments