The Unknown User
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 712
Let me start with a little background: I'm in an American politics class at my college, and on the first day (about 10 days ago) the professor handed out a survey meant to gauge the class' political affiliation and orientation.
One question in particular stood out to me: Would you favor an amendment to the Constitution or other legal action to further restrict the ownership or use of guns in America?
Of course, I checked "No," and wanted to circle it, highlight it, and write an essay to support my choice.
Last class, a summary was given of the survey, where I noticed that 63% of the class, with 22 people, disagreed with me, whereas 37%, with 13 people, agreed.
So today, the next class, we were discussing various questions on the survey, and we finally got to the gun control question. By this point, I'm already steaming, as I know why the majority of those 22 people favor more restrictive gun control legislation: it's drilled into them by politicians, and the popular media preys on violent occurrences. Every time there is a violent shooting, you get to see the distraught family members saying how they wished guns didn't exist, and then politicians and other various pundits jump all over the bandwagon, and nobody is ever honestly exposed to the other side.
With that said, I sort of knew what was coming: ignorant comments supporting gun control. But, I have to admit I was surprised. The moment my professor said "gun control," a hand went up, and that student made a remark about the VT shootings, saying that the shooter would have resorted to other means of violence if guns were not an option for him. I'm not sure if he was saying that the availability and ease of access to guns made them an option for him, or if he was trying to illustrate that gun control won't stop someone who intends to commit an act of violence, but nonetheless I thought it was a good point to start on.
Some other various remarks were said, which resulted in someone saying there should be a line somewhere between having no guns at all, and having guns being freely available to anyone and everyone (which I agree with).
I then raised my hand, which is odd for me, being a quiet, reserved, introvert. I don't remember my exact words, so I will paraphrase what I said, and will only quote what I specifically remember being said. I started out saying, "Gun control doesn't work." All gun control does is ignore the problem, and restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the laws; that's what makes them criminals to begin with. So, if you make gun control a reality, it won't have any effect on them.
This is where I stopped talking, expecting a response. I heard someone say that I had made a "good point," so I was glad someone was listening to logic.
Then a girl in the back row said that she didn't agree because guns should be harder for criminals to obtain in the first place. She acknowledged that gun control wouldn't stop criminals, but she reiterated that she wanted it to be harder for criminals to obtain their weapons.
This didn't make any sense, so I cut her off, and told her that criminals don't go to gun stores to buy guns so that they can have background checks run on them.
Then the professor cut in, and made the point that one of the bigger problems is the lack of uniformity from state to state with regards to the laws. For example, here in MA, I can't buy a Sig P220 Carry, or the blued Sig P232 as they do not fit the AG's restrictions. But, cross the border, into NH, and now you can legally obtain a suppressor. I agree that there needs to be a uniform law enforced by the federal government, not separate laws for every state.
The class ended shortly thereafter.
Did I make a good anti gun control statement? None of it was prepared, so I was completely winging it.
What are the usual pro gun control arguments? How can you respond to them politely, and using logic?
I expect this topic to come up again, and I'd like to be able to respond effectively while remaining respectful of others' differences.
One question in particular stood out to me: Would you favor an amendment to the Constitution or other legal action to further restrict the ownership or use of guns in America?
Of course, I checked "No," and wanted to circle it, highlight it, and write an essay to support my choice.
Last class, a summary was given of the survey, where I noticed that 63% of the class, with 22 people, disagreed with me, whereas 37%, with 13 people, agreed.
So today, the next class, we were discussing various questions on the survey, and we finally got to the gun control question. By this point, I'm already steaming, as I know why the majority of those 22 people favor more restrictive gun control legislation: it's drilled into them by politicians, and the popular media preys on violent occurrences. Every time there is a violent shooting, you get to see the distraught family members saying how they wished guns didn't exist, and then politicians and other various pundits jump all over the bandwagon, and nobody is ever honestly exposed to the other side.
With that said, I sort of knew what was coming: ignorant comments supporting gun control. But, I have to admit I was surprised. The moment my professor said "gun control," a hand went up, and that student made a remark about the VT shootings, saying that the shooter would have resorted to other means of violence if guns were not an option for him. I'm not sure if he was saying that the availability and ease of access to guns made them an option for him, or if he was trying to illustrate that gun control won't stop someone who intends to commit an act of violence, but nonetheless I thought it was a good point to start on.
Some other various remarks were said, which resulted in someone saying there should be a line somewhere between having no guns at all, and having guns being freely available to anyone and everyone (which I agree with).
I then raised my hand, which is odd for me, being a quiet, reserved, introvert. I don't remember my exact words, so I will paraphrase what I said, and will only quote what I specifically remember being said. I started out saying, "Gun control doesn't work." All gun control does is ignore the problem, and restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the laws; that's what makes them criminals to begin with. So, if you make gun control a reality, it won't have any effect on them.
This is where I stopped talking, expecting a response. I heard someone say that I had made a "good point," so I was glad someone was listening to logic.
Then a girl in the back row said that she didn't agree because guns should be harder for criminals to obtain in the first place. She acknowledged that gun control wouldn't stop criminals, but she reiterated that she wanted it to be harder for criminals to obtain their weapons.
This didn't make any sense, so I cut her off, and told her that criminals don't go to gun stores to buy guns so that they can have background checks run on them.
Then the professor cut in, and made the point that one of the bigger problems is the lack of uniformity from state to state with regards to the laws. For example, here in MA, I can't buy a Sig P220 Carry, or the blued Sig P232 as they do not fit the AG's restrictions. But, cross the border, into NH, and now you can legally obtain a suppressor. I agree that there needs to be a uniform law enforced by the federal government, not separate laws for every state.
The class ended shortly thereafter.
Did I make a good anti gun control statement? None of it was prepared, so I was completely winging it.
What are the usual pro gun control arguments? How can you respond to them politely, and using logic?
I expect this topic to come up again, and I'd like to be able to respond effectively while remaining respectful of others' differences.