Blog #123 – Debate over the 2nd Amendment
While we study the making of the Constitution and the creation of the Bill of Rights (BOR), I wanted to spend some time examining an application of this infomation in the real world. The debate over the right to bear arms has been a contentious one ever since mass shootings began to increase in frequency beginning in the late 1990s. There were a few major gun regulations passed in the 1990s – The Brady Bill in 1993 (a mandatory waiting period for buyers of hand guns along with background checks) and an assault weapons ban in 1994 (which expired in 2004), but nothing major has been passed since. Probably within the past six years or so, the debate over gun control, gun-owners’ rights, and the causes for the numbers of mass shootings have been hotly argued.
Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In 1995, the Supreme Court decided a pivotal case, U.S. v. Lopez. Alfonso Lopez was a senior who took a concealed gun into his high school. The state charges against him were dropped, and he was tried on federal charges of violating the Gun Free School Zones Act. His lawyers challenged his guilty verdict because schools are normally controlled by state and local governments, not the federal government. The conservative majority of the Court found that Congress cannot make gun laws using its Commerce Clause powers, fearing the spread of unregulated federal power.
For most of American history, the 2nd Amendment had been interpreted by the Supreme Court that gun ownership had been allowed as long as the owner was part of a local or state militia (as established in U.S. v. Miller, 1939). In 2008, the Supreme Court disconnected gun ownership’s link to a local or state militia in the case, D.C. v. Heller. In the District of Columbia, the district had passed a law that required hand gun owners to either lock their hand guns in a safe or keep them unloaded and disassembled in a person’s home. In Heller, the Supreme Court felt that laws that prevented guns being owned by the mentally ill, carried in schools and churches, and laws on the sale of firearms were all allowed. However, D.C. v. Heller “held that the Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, and struck down the handgun possession ban as well as the safe storage law (which had no exception for self-defense).” Essentially, an individual’s right to gun ownership has nothing to do w/ a person’s membership in a militia (an outdated notion by 2008).
Within the past 2 months, sparked by the two mass shootings on a Saturday in August, there has been a great tumult over the availability of assault weapons for the general public. Democratic presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, has even gone so far as to say that if he were elected president, he would institute a mandatory buy-back of AK-47s and AR-15s, common assault weapons owned by some Americans.
Here is the history of the 2nd Amendment, done by the History Channel:
Here is a video on gun control from the liberal perspective:
And here is a video on gun control from the conservative perspective:
Your job:
- First, provide your initial views on gun control.
- Watch the 3 videos, take notes on each of their arguments and assertions, and then make your own determination.
- Has your view changed now knowing the history of the 2nd Amendment and hearing from both sides of the gun debate? Why or why not?
I believe one of the many things we need to stop gun violence is to pass gun control legislation. Although gun control is a major part of the equation, we also need to fix mental health problems, and enact socio-economic change. I also believe that there should be a ban of semi-automatic weapons. Those types of guns have been the most used guns during mass shooting and are completely unnecessary. First, those who refer the second amendment as the reason why they should be able to own a gun are completely wrong. The second amendment really only allows a gun within a militia if it’s needed for the security of the nation, which it isn’t. We pour so much of our money into the military for the protection of the United States and its people, so the need to own guns for a “well regulated” militia is completely unnecessary. Another point is that there is no real excuse to own a military weapon. I agree with Beto O’Rourke when he said that Americans should not be owning tools of death that were meant to kill the soldiers of another country in times of war. While I’m against semi automatic guns, I do think mentally stable, non-violent people should be able to own other guns suchs as pistols or rifles for hunting or self-defense, you just won’t see me with one. It angers me when people say that the founding fathers would want people to own guns because it goes against the purist principle of american life which is John Locke’s three natural rights, that were reiterated in our Declaration of Independence, that all men have the right to life, liberty, and property. There will always be people who want to hurt people, but because of politicians who continually look away, and organizations like the NRA who donates thousands to lobby for death, the government has failed to secure our first right, our right to life.
After looking watching the videos, it has become obvious that, while this will be difficult (as shown by the Prager University video), getting guns off the street will require more then background checks and is supported my most americans (as shown by the Vox video). Now I know that to really have a nation that is not stricken with gun violence and mass shootings, we’ll need to do more then have background checks, and though it may be difficult, it’s something that most of America wants.
The second amendment has been one of the most controversial things in the past couple years, with everyone voicing their opinions. Personally, I think the law should be revised. When this right was created the only type of guns were large muskets, that took a couple seconds to reload. You couldn’t hide a musket under your coat, or in a bag. Now we have automatic weapons, or guns so small they can be easily hidden from view. In my eyes, there really isn’t a need to have an automatic assault rifle just laying around someone’s home, unless the person works in some type of law enforcement. I just don’t see the need. I don’t think the entire amendment should be abolished, but looked at in today’s time, where there are now seemingly more guns than people. And it’s becoming a liability to non-owning gun people, there are certain unstable people that can easily get access to guns, this is putting our own people in danger. After watching the three videos, I strongly feel the same, but maybe with a few more facts to back up my personal ideas. If places, stores, and private sales begin to put a lincing process into effect it can; stop already dangerous people from getting hold of a gun, or worse an automatic or semi automatic weapon. It will stop the impulsive purchases made out of anger, sadness, or the intent to harm themselves or another person. But , it will still allow good, and non dangerous or non impulsive people to still get a gun. I still however feel like automatic guns, or semi automatic guns are really not necessary for the everyday person, of course with the exception of law enforcement, or military personnel. The idea of a full ban of guns seems like a good idea in theory, but I don’t think will work. There will always be people that want things they cant have. Putting a ban on all types of guns would only fuel their desire to own a gun. And even with my own ideas on putting extra limitations, or background checks on people looking to buy assault rifles, there will forever be people that will somehow avoid the laws put in place to keep our people safe. At this point in time I don’t see an obvious solution that will work. However, if all states begin to put a licensing system in place, it will probably diminish the number of gun related crimes, and deaths.
Gun control is an extremely divisive issue not only our country, but around the world. Personally, I believe that “Common Sense Gun Control” is extremely stupid and puts us in more danger. Take Chicago for example. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and gun crimes have been at an all time high since the strictest laws were placed. Also, with the new direction the Democratic party, the leaders of the gun control movement, is taking towards socialism, has made many point out the fact that in major countries where socialism has taken over, one of, if not the first thing the governments did was take the civilians guns. By force. Maduro did it. So did Hitler. This has led many to believe that the country is starting to become a socialist nation. Also, tying this to the recent proposed flavored e-cigarette ban in Michigan, people will still get guns illegally if they’re banned, just like they will get flavored pods. In the video “Firearms in the US”, the narrator explains the amendment was not intended for personal protection only, but for protection of the country with the state’s militia. In the VOX video, it explains the background check system, its flaws, and how it can be improved. The FBI database has not been updated in a long time, and they are not implemented in private sales or gun show sales. Like most Americans, Democrat or Republican, I support the universal background checks for the nation, because it is not the gun that kills people, it is the people with mental illnesses that don’t have a record and plan to do bad that kill people with the guns. In the PragerU video, a news outlet where facts and statistics are leading sources, they state that in Australia, the government attempted to take the citizen’s guns, and 700,000 of the 3,000,000 registered guns were turned in, leaving about ¾ of guns remaining. If that statistic was converted into our country, out of our 325 million guns, 200 million would still be remaining. Also, many gun owning Americans said they would not give up their guns, as it is their right to have them. Overall, the videos did not change my opinions on gun control and reinforced my beliefs on guns. A few bad people with guns shouldn’t ruin guns for everyone in this country, because they didn’t break any laws, therefore they shouldn’t be punished for someone else’s actions.
This argument ties directly back to the question: Is safety more important than freedom? Initially, my first thoughts on gun control were for us as a nation to do whatever we could to stop these awful mass shootings. Sure, every time a mass shooting happened I read about it or heard about it, but I would not consider myself to be highly educated on gun control laws. But even so I could see that in the government’s eyes our safety is not more important than our freedom, because if it was, something would have been done about these shootings. I had heard about Australia’s “buy back” before watching this video and thought: if they can do it, why can’t we? But I have since come to realize it’s not that simple. After watching these videos I have come to a conclusion that, one, we cannot base our decisions on laws that were created over 200 years ago. Two, at the very least every state should follow the licensing system. And three, we cannot just simply get rid of all guns.
The first video explains that the second amendment was created with the thought of state militias and armies in mind. It said that over half of the colonists owned guns, because this was a time of fear from a tynary like Britain. In this time not only were guns used for protection, they were also used by slave masters to keep their slaves from rebelling. In this time I completely understand the owning of guns. But, If we think of this in relation to modern day, we have been free from Britain for over 200 years, and slavery has been abolished for over 150 years. I understand that people interpret the 2nd amendment differently but if gun control laws are going to change we have to think in terms of the 21 century.
The second video explained an idea of a gun control law called the licensing system. It said that if states abide by this it would take someone purchasing a gun 3 weeks to obtain it. This new system runs more background checks and stops impulse gun buying. If this system could even possibly prevent someone committing sucicide or someone harming others, why would we even think twice about passing it.
The third video sheds light on the difficulty of just getting rid of all guns. The thought that if you can’t ban all guns then you might as well ban no guns is definitely valid. I agree that no matter what, bans, buy backs, and laws you put on gun control people that want guns will figure out a way to get them, and that there will always be bad people in the world. But I can also see that if we can begin to ban some of these military weapons that common people shouldn’t even have in the first place, it could possibly lower the likelihood of something bad happening. And if it even lowers that likelihood by a small percentage, why not do it. But I also see another side to this argument, this is the side of the good people who simply want guns to protect themselves. Why should they be denied their right to self defence just because some people use guns for the wrong reason?
I don’t have an answer on how to solve this, and I don’t think that there is one right answer. The trillions of differing opinions in this nation make it difficult for decisions and changes to be made. But after watching these videos it’s more complicated than I had imagined, this is a tricky topic, and finding a solution won’t be easy. But all I know is that steps must be taken in order to begin solving this national problem.
Before I watched the videos on gun control, my views were that I did not feel all that great about how our country is treating gun control laws today. I’m all for protection laws if it means our mass shooting rates are going to go down by a landslide. But it feels like our government isn’t doing anything to do their best to make the gun control laws even more enforced. With our mass shooting rates higher than ever, you’d think our government would be doing their best to make sure we can be safe wherever we go (a supermarket,church, SCHOOL), but it doesn’t feel like there’s much being done to the laws to ensure protection. Last year there was the whole March For Our Lives movement, and yet our government still won’t get a grip on what’s really going on in our country and why there are so many people being killed for no reason. Maybe if our president and Congress spent less time insulting each other, maybe there would be a chance that they’d put in the effort to enforce the laws even more. I think what can be done to actually make sure there are results to having safer communities is having security at everyday places. I’d hate for that to be the reality, but if it can lower the killings in a year, maybe we’d have to take a chance and try it out.
After I watched the videos my thoughts changed slightly. I know now that there are background checks being done on people wanting to buy a gun, which is a good thing, especially because we can then know who we can trust if they’re being sold a gun. However, background checks are only being done at gun shops, and not places like private sellers or gun shows. Because background checks can’t be done there, we can’t guarantee trustworthiness as to who guns are being sold to. Also, at the places where background checks ARE being done, since the national system that holds our records (prison records, restraining orders, immigrant records, etcetera) doesn’t have every single record of every single person in America, we also can’t guarantee our safety because we don’t know information on who is buying a gun. So all in all, I’m not really happy with our current gun laws, but I feel a bit happier now knowing that there’s some form of effort being put in so that we have a safer country.
Prior to watching the videos linked below, my views on gun control were as follows:
-The Second Amendment should be protected, meaning that people should still have the right to own a gun.
– All fifty states should apply a licensing system (including a firearms safety course) rather than just a simple FBI background check.
– There should be stricter regulation regarding the privatized selling of guns (crackdown on sites that don’t require any sort of background check or identity verification, such as the “Ebay for guns” gunbroker.com)
-Banning all guns wouldn’t be effective in lowering violent crime rates (people with a drive to do harm will always find another way).
– Gun owners should be highly encouraged, but not legally obliged to lock up their guns in a padlocked safe when they aren’t in use.
– All fifty states should require a gun owner to obtain a permit if they wish to carry a concealed weapon (seven states do not implement this).
– We should eliminate open carry laws (including with a permit)
-I’d also like to make it known my history involving guns. No one in my immediate family is a gun owner. I have never, and probably will never hunt with a gun. I have never been a victim of gun violence. My experience handling guns is limited to handguns and shooting at targets (think police academy training). I do not want to be a gun owner in the future. My favourite uncle aka “the merchant of death” had a career in defense technology, and sold guns to foreign nations (although I only recently became aware of this and it has not impacted my views on gun control).
After watching the videos, my views on gun control remain mostly the same.
Before this blog assignment, I was aware of the history of the second amendment and how it was originally created to ensure strong militias. In 2019, we have a complex military with special training programs, drafts, and weapons of mass destruction, so I don’t think that our muskets, rifles, and handguns would be particularly helpful nowadays. However, various court cases (some being Supreme Court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller) have ruled in favour of individual gun owners that are not part of any sort of militia. It is then of my understanding, that the Second Amendment has been expanded to average citizens who have no desire to be in any sort of military setting. I personally see nothing wrong with expanding the Second Amendment to everyday citizens. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves in the face of danger (although the majority of gun related homicides are found not to be related to self-defense. Michael Planty and Jennifer L. Truman, “Firearm Violence, 1993-2011,” bjs.gov, May 2013 ).
I believe that it would be impossible, as the What Should We Do About Guns? Video suggests, to get rid of all guns. There are just too many guns in America (we have more guns than people), and if we were to ban guns people would most likely smuggle them in. Mexico for example has extremely strict gun laws, yet they have more gun related homicides per year per capita than the United States https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-guns-20180524-story.html%3f_amp=true . This is because Mexicans are smuggling guns into their country from America. If we were to ban guns, I’m almost certain we would be illegally importing them from other countries, such as Canada.
In addition, if we were to ban or lower the number of guns in America, the violent crime rate wouldn’t substantially decrease. Honduras has the highest rate of violent crimes per capita, yet they don’t rank in the top ten for highest number of guns per capita. Many speculate that the high violent crime rate in Honduras is mostly related to the poor economy and the high prevalence of gangs, rather than the presence of firearms.
In 2016, the United States ranked 30th overall in gun related homicides per capita. But in in relation to suicides by firearm, the U.S ranked 2nd. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands
Banning guns would be ineffective in lowering the suicide rate in the long term. For example, prior to the widespread use of natural gas in the UK, sticking your head in the oven (or something similar) to inhale coal fumes was the leading method of suicide. After natural gas became popular, suicide rates dropped dramatically. While this lowered the overall suicide rate at the time, a decade later the rate began to climb back up, with attempters trying different methods than before
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves-lives/. If we were to try to ban guns in America to try and decrease the suicide rate, I don’t believe it would work longterm. Americans would find other ways to commit suicide, or just smuggle the guns in from somewhere else as aforementioned.
On a separate note, we should take a turn towards less-lethal weapons. It would be inaccurate to call tasers and stun guns non-lethal, as some people have died from being shocked by one, but by encouraging police officers and other people who need weapons for self defense to use tools besides guns, we can hopefully prevent deaths and injuries without having to apply legislation.
TLDR: We should protect the 2nd Amendment and insure that if someone passes through a licensing system, they should be allowed to own a gun. After watching the videos, my views remained the same. We shouldn’t start banning guns, as it would be mostly ineffective. We should start using less-lethal weapons more often.
My views as a high school teenager on gun control is that it’s not being watched as much as it should. Due to all of last years shootings in high schools that was a prime example that gun control hadn’t been observed. Getting a gun in the state of Michigan isn’t as hard as people may think. Especially to have a concealed carry gun, or even getting you hands on a AR-15. That amaerican made assault rifle is a military grade gun that is extremely to find in the usa. This is why I think that the gun control can use a lot of work to prevent some of the tragedies that have happened.Like adding more restrictions and limits to the laws on guns. See I know that people might say what about the right to bear arms. It’s not like that right is being stripped from you it’s just kinda like having another law put in place for your safety. Because how would you feel if you were in one of those classrooms and a gunman walked in holding a full assault rifle. I get that the government has already banned the use of some weapons. But in ways it has made the gun control harder. From the 3rd video it talks about how there had been attempts to ban guns before and that they both fail. So that wouldn’t be a good, like if you don’t ban all guns why ban any. We could attempt to be like australia but america has too many guns for that to work. It could make a gun flood on the black market so it would be pointless. From the 2nd video I think that it would be sligtly dumb for background check to buy guns because thay could be paling a crime, not that did it before. Some want guns to protect themselves or go hunting. Though the system of background checks needs to be upgraded so that it will have everything on there so it might help the problem of gun control. If a person was already dangerous but had no recorded it could make it so he could get a gun. The licensing was sounds like a better plain but there are some things that it can’t prevent. From the 1st video it talks alot about how the gun laws had worked in the past. No, my original idea of how gun control needs to be tighter than it is set up now. As they talked about in the 2nd video how the background checking doesn’t really work well. Because the fact that the crime rate that involve guns are still at a high rate. Though I did like the licensing idea that they talked about in that video too. It makes success even though it takes a bit longer to get your hands on a gun. precautions need to be taken to keep innocent people safe. So that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands. The only thing is that this doesn’t fully stop the trading of guns on the black market but in a way it does slow it down. This could potentially stop shootings.
Gun Control Blog #123
I believe that the gun control in America is nowhere near strict enough, and that too many bad people getting control of dangerous guns within minutes is outrageous.
I understand that our second amendment states the right to bear arms, and that it is our personal right to be able to own a weapon. But the constitution also states the elastic clause, meaning that you can change one parts of the constitution based on what happens in the future. Since the amendments are part of the constitution, the second amendment would be changeable (add more specificity) in order to control the people that are uncontrollable.
The amendments were created so long ago, in such a different time period with completely different ways of life. The people were healed to a different standard. They were also initialy created when half the population had owned a gun, and when protecting themselves was a bigger issue (with becoming independent from British). The reasons for owning a gun were extremely different then than they are today. Then it was one, about protecting yourself. And two, also to make yourself feel like a part of the militia, and enforce control over all of your property. These reasons are not valid reasons today, therefore you should not be owning guns today.
Some states starting adding a license to the right to own guns, causing a much lengthier process to the owning of such a dangerous weapon, and this is scientifically proven to drop the rates of gun related deaths. So why are more states not adding this licence requirement? In these states, bad people can get a gun within minutes. Their system has more flaws and weaknesses than strengths because of the dated system, and lack of detail. The better system, the licence systems, take up to three weeks, has a required gun safety class, and the background check is much more thorough. This forces people to stop making impulsive decisions on the purchase of a gun, and makes sure a gun doesn’t get into the hands of someone who is mental ill, has a criminal record, or (for the most part) someone who is planning to abuse the purpose of a weapon.
My opinion stayed the same while reading and watching videos of high educated people discuss gun laws, people abuse the second amendment constantly, which leads to deaths of innocent people because of what is most likely an impulse decision that was easy to let happen because of our so called “gun laws” that we have today in the United States.
I believe that there are simply far too many firearms in this country. People get into arguments and every country has citizens who suffer from mental illness and are therefore dangerous to themselves and others. Additionally, extremists and racists exist in every country. The difference is, in the United States, it is way too easy for a person to obtain a gun which allows things to escalate and become deadly and violent. Background checks aren’t enough because they are too easy to obtain and not nearly extensive enough. The assault weapons ban isn’t enough either because many of the shootings involve a handgun. I feel that the second amendment is an antiquated law that is no longer relevant or necessary and that it should be repealed and compleeyty abolished. No one needs a gun and no child should have to practice lockdown drills as they enter kindergarten. I am scared every day of my life entering my school or even going to a movie theatre because of mass shootings that occur every single day in this country.
After watching the three videos I learned more about the ins and outs of the second amendment and it only made me feel stronger about the law being abolished. It is no longer necessary in today’s society. The Right argues that all citizens deserve to be able to have easy access to guns. The left feels that much more should be done to limit citizens’ access to guns. I’m even more adamant about the fact that guns are not a right that the United States citizens need to have. I don’t even think people should be allowed to buy guns to hunt. I think hunting and killing animals for fun and sport is disgusting and unnecessary. Many would argue that my stance is far too drastic and I know that it will never happen in this country because the NRA is a huge moneymaker and it funds most of the republican party. I am open to listening to anyone try to convince me otherwise but as far as I’m concerned the second amendment can be repealed and children can go back to practicing fire drills instead of the ALICE protocol. Even the argument that people will find a way to kill if thats their goal without access to guns makes no sense because a knife or other weapon cant do nearly as much damage as a firearm.
My views on gun control are that it has worked in the past but may now need reform as gun safety has been a substantial problem in America for the last 20-30 years. Although my views may be influenced to be pro-gun because I have lived in a household with guns, I believe that gun control needs to be stronger. I don’t think that the solution to strengthening gun control is to take away guns or make them illegal because that would be almost impossible and guns can still be obtained illegally fairly easily. I think that the main issue is not the gun itself, rather the people behind them. In my personal experience, I have met many gun owners who have stated very similar beliefs. I think that background checks need to be more extensive and that they should be enforced. Along with that, there needs to be some kind of mental health test which you are required to pass before you are able to purchase any kind of gun.
Over time the second amendment has been lost in translation and can no longer be used as an argument because it has been interpreted by the supreme court that an individual has the right to a firearm. My determination is that there needs to be a stronger background check process similar to what is stated in the Vox video. Taking away all guns will never work because there is an absurd amount of them, and banning only the ‘’bad’’ ones would be ineffective because people will just use other guns. Currently, there is no way to end gun violence. There are many ways to lessen it, but it will take time and research to discover the best solution. I think that the license idea in the Vox video could work but it has been shown that some states have gotten rid of it in the past. All in all, my determination is that something needs to be done, but it shouldn’t be extreme. Facts show that people are in support of change, it’s just that the right idea needs to come along.
My views have not changed after watching the three videos. I had known that the second amendment was never written specifically claiming all citizens have the right to own a gun, but it was interesting to see how it has been interpreted in many court cases over the years. My opinions have not changed. I agreed with many ideas from both videos, and I believe that the solution to gun problems in America lies somewhere in between the ideals shown in the two videos.
All throughout history, lots of major events would have looked very different without guns. Just imagine, World War II: no guns. American Revolution: no guns. When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights gave free Americans the right to keep and bear arms. However, that was 232 years ago. It’s 2019 now, and things have drastically changed. Since then, there have been countless incidents and tragedies rooting towards gun violence, and we always seem to ask ourselves the same question: “Why can’t we just take away all civilian ownership of guns altogether?” This question makes it seem as if things would indeed be better if people didn’t own guns, but in reality, it wouldn’t. Number one, there are many other forms of homicide that do not involve pulling a trigger. Number two, It’s unconstitutional. I don’t want to take any side on the matter, but my opinion is as follows: Put the right things in the hands of the right people. In other words, People who are deemed as dangerous, criminal record or not, shouldn’t be able to purchase a gun, And lawful citizens who want to purchase a gun just for the purpose of defense should be able to do so.
So what exactly is the government doing about this? Many elected officials, Donald Trump and Barack Obama to be specific, have both mentioned the strengthening of criminal background checks required to buy guns from a gun shop, trade shows, etc. But from watching the video, it’s clear that the current background check system is broken. For example, the shooter involved in the Charleston Church shooting was able to buy a gun after taking a background check because his name was left out of the FBI database. This means that even though someone may have a record, they still could be able to buy a gun because their name might not be in the database. Something that 12 states, including Michigan, have done to drastically lower gun violence rates is enable a gun licensing system. The new licensing systems work by making the buyer take a class on firearm safety even before they step foot into a gun shop. They then will have to fill out an application with the police department, and get their fingerprints tested. And after that, The police will notify every local law enforcement database, including the FBI database. Studies have shown that states who have implemented a licensing system have seen gun violence rates decrease. And most importantly, the licensing system does not in any way violate the 2nd amendment.
From watching these videos, I think my opinion on gun control has stayed the same. People with good intentions should be able to have guns for defense and recreational purposes. People who might be dangerous with a gun in their possession should legally not be able to purchase a firearm. But if more states adopt the licensing system, we could be living in a safer country.
First, provide your initial views on gun control.
I believe that guns should be less easily accessible. Taking guns away completely wouldn’t stop them from being sold illegally , so I don’t believe there is truly a purpose in doing so, but I believe stores should be more thorough in checking whether a person is eligible and mentally stable enough to be able to purchase a gun. Unfortunately, these sellers usually don’t really care who they sell their guns to because making money is their main concern. Because of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” which protects these sellers from being sued if their sold guns were involved in illegal activities, whoever buys the guns, werner they can operate it or not or their mental health, isn’t the main thing on their mind.
Watch the 3 videos, take notes on each of their arguments and assertions, and then make your own determination
what conservatives believe and support :
they don’t support a gun ban
we have too many guns to try and ban them all
people should be allowed to keep their guns to protect themselves from bad people
everyone has the right to a gun
gun supply is too high in the country
gun control laws that worked in other countries couldn’t work in the united states because of the large amount of weapons in the country, which is much larger than any other countries
what liberals believe and support :
universal background checks
gun licenses
preventing potentially dangerous people from getting a gun
preventing people with a record from getting a gun
Has your view changed now knowing the history of the 2nd Amendment and hearing from both sides of the gun debate? Why or why not?
after watching the videos, my opinion still hasn’t changed. I believe that guns should be more complicated to get, and i agree with the licensing idea on the liberal side. guns should probably not be taken away all together but mentally unstable people, people with criminal records and potentially dangerous people should not be allowed access to firearms. most of the time, guns do more harm than good to others and a criminal’s right to a gun is far from being worth someone’s life. even though our country has a large amount of guns, I still believe there are ways to make it safer for people, without having to go to gun violence as a first thought.
I believe that gun control laws are not strict enough to keep civilians of this country safe from mass shootings, which have become way to common. Guns have proven to be very dangerous if they get in the hands of someone who is unsafe to the public. The guns (assault rifles) that are being used in these mass shootings are too powerful to be possessed by regular citizens. Owning these types of guns is unnecessary and dangerous. Guns should be more difficult to obtain, and should be significantly limited. I believe that my safety is more important than the right to bear arms.
The second amendment dates back to the beginning of the nation, when half the citizens in the colonies owned guns. This was also a time when the country needed civilians to fight in state militias and defend the country against foreign nations. Most slave owners owned guns during this time period. At the time, the second amendment was not thought to protect individual citizens, but instead to allow citizens to be apart of militias and to protect the nation. Recently the supreme court has said that the second amendment is a personal right to carry weapons. Some people believe that more guns means a safer environment, while others believe more guns are more dangerous for our countries communities.
Politicians have continued to say the same things about background checks after every crisis that is resulted by guns. The background check is out of date, and sometimes results in dangerous people obtaining guns and using them to harm civilians. These background checks miss someone who has a clean record, but can be harmful in the future. The licensing system has been proven to be more effective than the background checks. A majority of Americans believe that the licensing system should be implemented everywhere,. These Americans support this system over background checks.
A gun ban has no popular support, even in the liberal states. Buy backs will not work in the United States because we currently have so many guns in the country. Guns would go to the black market if they are ultimately banned. The narrator believes that there is no good gun policies to stop gun crimes in America.
My beliefs have not changed after hearing both sides of the debate and the history of the second amendment. The second amendment is irrelevant to today because the circumstances today are substantially different than they were when the amendment was initially created. The background checks cannot account for people whose records are clean, but buy a gun for intentions to harm the lives of themselves or other Americans.
Before I watched the videos, my opinion on gun control was that guns should not be completely banned, but that we do need better restrictions and a licensing system. Banning all guns entirely would be fruitless, and there would be major backlash over completely violating the second amendments, so I know that is not a solution. However, a national licensing system should be in place. I believed that there is a problem with private sales that needed to be more regulated to ensure that the necessary precautions are being taken during these sales. Since these sales aren’t currently being moderated, it can be much easier for malicious people to get their hands on a gun. At gun shops there are background checks, but even then you can’t be certain what a person’s intent is when buying a gun even without a criminal record. This can also be due to the fact that so many records are missing. I know that originally the second amendment was meant for those in the militia and allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. Overtime, the way the second amendment is interpreted has evolved over time. Thus, today’s modern perception on the amendment is that regular citizens have the right to own guns. I did recognize the amount of violence we are suffering from though. We have had so many instances of mass gun violence, and I really advocate for something to change so that hopefully these tragedies can occur way less often, if even at all.
After watching the three videos on gun control, my opinion has not really swayed. However, I do feel like I know more about the second amendment than I had before I watched them. Still, most of the information in these videos I knew. Such as the foundations and reasoning behind the second amendment and how it was made in order to please as many different groups of people as possible. I also knew about the issue with private sellers, and the difference between buying from a gun store or buying from a private seller. I agree with Vox’s video where they talk and discuss the nation licensing, rather than completely banning guns. If somehow all guns were banned, it wouldn’t stop people from smuggling them or getting them through other means. Thus, I believe that the required safety courses and applications would be extremely helpful since it will help submit more data and records, as well as hopefully lessen the number of eligible candidates from being able to use guns.
So overall, although my mindset is still the same from before, I do feel as though I have a deeper understanding of the gun debate.
Before watching the videos, I had mixed emotions on gun control and whether or not it does more harm than good. I think that everyone should have the right to own a gun (just like the Second Amendment states). But on the other hand, guns are very dangerous and have been proven to cause many issues and deaths in the United States. I think that guns help the common person feel more safe but when used wrongly guns can be very scary and cause many different problems, like the ones we saw in August. I don’t think guns should be fully banned and I really dont think its very possible either… but if it was it would be ineffective because many people will find another way to harm others. I think a major way to resolve this issue is to create a stricter regulation system and to do a deeper check that is longer than 180 seconds ( as stated in the video).
After watching the three videos, I felt more educated, but still had the same opinions. I still feel that the everyday person should have the right to protect themselves when they are in danger and need some sort of way out. One of the videos debates the fact that we should get rid of all guns. I don’t think this is very logical because there are just to many guns out there to begin with. It would take the government years and years and years to get all the guns and even then there will still be more. People will find different ways to get guns into the states and they will still be a common issue. Some may think that banning guns will reduce the harm and suicude rate, but they would be mistaken because most would find other ways to do it.
I think the Second Amendment is very important and will help many people feel safer in their own homes and throughout their everyday lives. I also think that guns have an unacceptable side to them and that many people can abuse the Second Amendment and take their rights for granted. After watching the videos, I believe that the purchasing of guns and the tests in order to get a gun need to change and become more thorough in order to make sure that everyone purchasing a gun is safe. Although we may still have issues with this solution, it will decrease the amount of harm we have seen guns put people through.
Gun control activists and school shooter protesters mainly blame the government’s “poor” gun control laws that prevent an average consumer from purchasing a firearm, however what should be blamed here is the individual who went out and committed the act. Many people fail to realize that a gun cannot do any harm unless there is somebody operating it, which is why the government is yet to completely ban firearms as a whole. In Japan, there are little to none gun homicides because the government had banned the right to own a weapon in 1958, however this will not work in the united states because of the fact that the US has over 325 million guns, which is about 3 times the population of Japan. This evidently proves that no matter what gun control laws congress passes, it is impossible to completely get rid of firearms in the united states. It is possible however, to enforce the distribution of firearms to people through a licensing process, which is what I believe is the better way of handling gun control in the US. The purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee an individual right to possess and carry a weapon, in case of a dangerous confrontation, it was not intended to allow firearms to be used for underlying purposes. Court also enforced the second amendment by requiring any individual who wants to buy a gun to go through a background check first, which should in favor reduce the amount of school shootings and other crimes involving firearms. However this isn’t always the case, as people are still able to buy weapons even while having a criminal record because of the FBI’s database being so outdated. In order to counteract this flaw, 12 states have already begun placing an entire process starting from going to a firearm safety class, then submitting an application at the police department, and finally having your background thoroughly checked by the FBI, and state police databases. Studies in Connecticut have shown that implementing a licensing system works in preventing gun related homicides, which means that it should be implemented in all 5 states. Australia had banned the right to own any automatic rifle and forced its civilians to hand them over to be destroyed, which resulted in over 3 million guns destroyed by the Australian government. Again, with the US having 325 million guns, I still believe a similar gun ban would prove to be useless.
My opinion on guns and gun control/violence is that there should be guns. I think having a gun is an option some people want to have to provide for their families, like hunting, or protecting their family or themselves. Even though I obviously don’t agree with the violence and abuse of a right given to citizens, such as school shootings, etc, I believe it is the right of that person who is wanting to buy a gun to be able to have one. To help with controlling guns and gun control, I believe it should be harder for people to buy a gun. There should be thorough background checks for anyone interested in buying. Some people can argue that that won’t prove anything, but it can’t hurt to try.
After watching all three videos, I agree with what each video said, and changed my views slightly. I agree with the third video in the sense that banning guns will create controversy and will be nearly impossible to be able to complete that task. I also think a ban of guns would anger a decent amount of the public who had previously owned the gun. As for the second video, that modified my previous statement about background checks for people interested in buying a gun. I completely agree with the licensing process adopted by a few states. But it surprised me that the majority of the states hadn’t adopted the process. It gives a much more advanced background check that doesn’t only check the FBI’s sometimes unreliable systems, it also checks the county and state databases in areas you have lived to see information from their end. I also agree with the first video that talks about how they created the second amendment that allows Americans to own guns because of the need for protection against foreign wars. The video also made me think that the guns they had back in the 1700s took a very long time to reload, and weren’t as dangerous as guns such as assault rifles we have now. The purpose of giving the citizens that right is to form militias within the states to protect themselves. But now we have an army that will protect us from foreign affairs or even internal quarrels among the states. So can we really say that the second amendment to our Constitution is valid is present day? To be honest, I can see it both ways and I am very conflicted on the situation.
Before watching the videos and learning more about gun control, my initial views were that the citizens of the US should have their Second Amendment rights protected. As stated in the constitution, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Although I believe that the right to bear arms is a law that should be protected, I also think that the states should do a better job of figuring out who exactly the guns are being sold to. It it is important that people who purchase a gun should undergo a mental health test. This would make sure that guns are not being directly put into the wrong hands. Secondly, I think that states should be stricter regarding the people who are selling guns by making sure that they have checked their backgrounds and have information on the supplier. Lastly, although I think that this right should be protected, I believe that the government should explore the limitations regarding what types of weapons are available for the average citizen to procure.
The first video talks about how the Second Amendment was written in a time period where people were in a state of war and were without a strong militia. We also had very few alliances with other countries. The people living in the US needed a way to defend themselves. My thoughts on this are that today, we have a very strong military and don’t need to be constantly aware of being harmed. We also have the media, if there was a problem or threat to us, the news would spread extremely fast. The second video discusses background checks and how states have enhanced the background checks on people who are purchasing guns. This is to help prevent the guns from being put into the wrong hands. The third video focuses on the confiscation of guns and how the public has different opinions on whether or not they should give them up. Some people are willing to give up their guns, and some are not.
My opinion on gun control was not changed by the videos. This is because I was previously educated on the matter and had already listened to both sides of the argument. I don’t think we should ban guns because I don’t think the government should be able to fully take that right away. However, I do believe that steps need to be taken to make sure that the country is safer.
My current opinion on gun control is that a lot of guns should be unavailable to the public or difficult to get at least. I haven’t done enough research on the topic to know if my ideal situation would be possible, but what I think would be best is, aside from guns used for hunting, most guns should be hard or impossible for the public to get. I believe that the only gun relatively easy to get would be something low powered that does not have the ability to do a lot of damage. I reason that the people that commit gun crimes because they have a mental illness or do it out of impulse would be far less likely to get the hard to get guns. When someone who plans on hurting people does go out of their way to get these guns that are used in shootings, they can be stopped by the low powered guns that are better available to the public. Consider most shootings it’s one person killing lots of people, that means the people protecting themselves just need to injure or kill one person. This is in my current opinion, the best solution because, it would reduce the number of these shootings and when one does occur with a stronger weapon the people have something that is adequate to protect them but is not extremely powerful in the sense that they could walk into a building and within a few minutes 20 people would be dead. But again, I haven’t done enough research to know if that is plausible or if there are even guns like that.
Hearing both sides didn’t change my opinion drastically, but it did allow me to modify my opinion to make for a better solution in my mind. I’ll start with the last video, it didn’t change my mind. It says that a gun ban doesn’t have popular support, that buybacks won’t work, and that handguns account for 80% of crimes. I will respond to these points in relation to my original and modified opinion. I never thought there should be a gun ban, it is a bad idea, there will always be those who just want to do harm and they can get guns on the black market. The only thing banning guns would do is leave law-abiding citizens defenseless. It said buybacks won’t work, the funny thing about guns is that they need ammunition and won’t last forever. Therefore, to solve that issue the government should condition people’s ability to buy guns and ammunition on them having a license. Lastly, it said 80% of gun crimes are handguns, I had to think more about this one and how to get through this issue, but then I had some unanswered question, is it counting individual crimes where mass murders and one on one killings are valued the same or is it based on deaths. If based on total crimes the issue could be that they are used in more murders but not mass shootings, and what percent of those crimes or death are due to weaker handguns. This video helped me to test my theory
The second video helped me to modify my opinion. Now my ideal solution relies on licensing. It’s based on the idea that lower-powered handguns or guns that do not have the ability to commit mass murders or mow right through people, if such guns exist, should have a licensing system but should be relatively easier to get. On the other hand, guns that could do more damage should have longer and more thorough licensing systems in order to keep the number of people with them down and keep people from impulse buying them, in the sense that they get the urge to commit a crime or do harm and they aren’t inherently a bad person. These videos did help me modify my opinion, the second one helped me shape my opinion and make it more plausible
My personal view on gun policy is that I feel there should be more regulation. I feel that due to recent events it is evident that something isn’t working the way it is supposed to. However I’m not entirely sure if it is gun laws that need to be reformed or are schools. I think that if gun laws were more strict than future school shooting could be prevented. If there were more screening to buy a gun and maybe even certain laws to where you can store a gun in your home. There is a need for change, we cannot keep allowing for mass shooting after mass shooting to occur. I am not a politician nor am I an expert on guns but as a student I am afraid. I am afraid that we have to do alice training it bothers me. The simple fact that students in a school have to be taught to defend their self from a potential shooter is a direct reflect on how deeply the government is failing with gun policy. Students of a public school should be safe, they should be allowed to learn without the fear that today someone might waltz into their school with a gun and intention to kill. I also understand up to a point that even a ban on guns won’t fix the problem, shootings aren’t only a gun policy problem but a mental health issue that plagues some american citizens. I think that there is no true solution I can come up with that would fix american mass shootings.
The first video talks about some of the history behind the second amendment. It talks about how the right to bear arms was so citizens of the 1800s could protect themselves from slave rebellions and the government. Aslo the right to bear arms was so states could have a militia. The second video goes over the benefits of background checks. The video stresses how every time there’s a mass shooting politicians come up with the same idea more background checks. Licencing is brought up as a possible solution that makes sure the person purchasing the gun should be allowed to. However, this solution requires the possible gun owner to wait up to 3 weeks or more. The third video argues that a gun ban is not an option even in a perfect scenario. It gives the example of Australia’s attempt on a gun ban following a shooting. They only collected about ⅓ of their populations amount of guns. In summary the video gives examples and explains why a gun ban will not work.
I think my view stays mostly intact. My new knowledge of some of the history of the 2nd amendment, and arguments from both sides both for and against gun laws has given me more perspective. I don’t think my shift in perspective is large enough to make me change my view that change is needed. I do think that the videos have given me new ideas. I strongly agree with the second video topic. Licensing sounds like a great idea. I didn’t think that their was an option that did more than just a background check. That’s what shifted my view.
My initial view on gun control is that further laws regulating guns do need to be passed. I do recognize the limitations of the federal government on making certain laws regarding guns. Nowadays, however, guns often are being carried and used in schools as seen in recent school shootings. This violates the ruling of the court which prohibits the carrying of firearms at schools. Usually the school shooter does end up with punishment from the law, but not after lives are taken. Although guns may be necessary to be used for self defense in homes, I feel that there is no reason that guns should be used in self defense at a school. For this reason, I feel that some kind of law controlling guns before they reach the school must be passed. The problem is, how do we pass laws that do not infringe on people’s rights to keep guns at home for self defense? In response to this question, I definitely think there are many things we can regulate and change about the process of buying and selling guns, which is constitutional. For those who argue that controls on the gun selling process infringes on their right to obtain a firearm, I must disagree with. This is because even with new regulations, whoever does not pose a threat with a firearm will eventually be able to obtain one. Would that be enough to stop school shootings? Maybe it would have only a small impact, but an impact nevertheless. Eventually, I do think we as a country need to take more drastic measures, such as banning certain assault weapons as done in 1994. You still may use a handgun for self defense. Overall, banning guns completely will be nearly impossible due to the makeup of our Congress. Adjusting the degree as to how much these weapons can cause harm is a good first step.
After watching all three videos, I agree with most of my initial views and propositions that further measures of gun control should be made. The second video did inform me about another form of gun control that I was not aware of. I think licensing would be effective, especially since it does not take away the right to have a gun. This supports my stance that a more effective method of gun control should be put into place. The video provided the evidence that the method was effective in Connecticut and Missouri, as well as showed how specifically it worked. This supports the third video’s point of view, which implored lawmakers and politicians to provide explicit evidence of how and why their plan for gun control would work. Additionally, the licencing system would have the support of the population that the third video argues that a gun control policy requires to be effective. Both videos did not present the total banning of guns as a viable solution, as it would neither be the most effective solution, nor would it have any support to get it passed in Congress. The third video does mention that if small gun bans were to be made, it must be proven to be effective. I think I would need to do further research on how exactly that would happen. Finally, the first video has lead me to believe that the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect the possession of firearms in a different way. I do not believe, however, that this means that it will be possible only using that argument to put a ban on guns.
My initial views (1):
I believe that agreements in the interpretation of the Second Amendment is what will allow us to agree upon how we should, as a society, regulate individuals’ gun ownership (a.k.a gun control). Times have changed as the amendments were written during a period where no sufficient powerful national military existed in the United States and local militias were the primary fighting forces of our country. As our country changed way from needing a militia, the interpretation of the Second Amendment should also shift interpretations away from militias. In my opinion, it’s also important to understand the function of a militia to properly understand the Second Amendment today. Militias consisted of individuals from a common area. An example of a militia (yet prior and during the Revolutionary War) were the Minutemen. They were by few means considered a professional army, but more so individuals that bore arms. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was created to protect the “security of a free state”. This was at a time where the rights set forth through the Constitution were at risk, as without a proper military, the nation was at risk. Therefore, I interpret the Second Amendment in a modern view as the right to bear arms in order to keep the rights of the people protected from individuals or groups who are actively threatening one’s freedoms.
Under my interpretation of the Second Amendment in a modern perspective, I therefore think that the right to bear arms should not be limited to professional militaries. I think that individuals certainly should have the right to bear arms for the protection of their own rights. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the creation or enforcement of laws that “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Based on this section of the Fourteenth Amendment, I believe that the right to bear arms would be necessary in the event that a person were to attempt to commit an unlawful actions, such as murder. If the Fourteenth Amendment gives us the right to live, the Second gives us a method in which to protect that right.
After the videos:
As the video from the History Channel explained, guns were used for the protection of property. That argument could very well be used today. If someone were to attempt to commit a robbery in another person’s house (while they were home) for example, this would not only threaten their property but potentially their lives too. It is probable by common knowledge, that an intruder in one’s home with the intent to steal, would likely have some sort of weapon capable of harming someone’s life. Also stated in the video from the History Channel, the right to bear arms was in part created to create balance between future federal forces and the citizens they would be to serve. This prevented the federal government from abusing the rights given to the people.
Part 3:
As the power of the government is given by the people of whom they are created to govern, it is in my opinion that if the people give the government the right to bear arms for the defense of the rights of said people, the people are also to be able to bear arms for the protection of their own rights if they so choose. Overall, my views after watching the videos have not changed from those prior. I still think that the people still have the right to bear arms as the Second Amendment allows. In my opinion, stricter gun control is being leveraged as a political tool for instilling the notion that a dangerous problem has a simple solution. Even with stricter gun control policy that would limit the ways that people legally obtain firearms and who can even get them, people who don’t have a legal use for firearms would simply find an illegal way to obtain them. This would just be creating a barrier. A barrier is not infinite; it’s possible to get around it. If, in a society where people have the right to legally bear arms, they could be used as a defense against people who choose to use them to cause harm. Perhaps the best way to defend against people who choose to cause harm is to fight fire with fire.
Initially, I believed that there needed to be a serious revamping of the second amendment to make it much more difficult to obtain a firearm. It seems like it’s become commonplace to hear about mass shootings. In my opinion it would be much better if guns were completely eradicated, though it’s nearly impossible to completely ban something that is as tempting as a firearm. If you look at other things the government has banned in the past. Certain drugs, for example, like Methamphetamines, can be banned, yet people still find a way to access it. Unlike illegal drugs, guns are used much more commonly, so if they were banned, it probably wouldn’t be difficult to obtain them. Politicians often say that they wish there was a system of more intense background checks in place, but from what I have observed, nothing is usually done. Gun control is something that we usually hear about, in school, on the news, and from our parents. We have lockdown drills and are shown videos about what to do in the case of a mass shooter. It’s unfair that students now are forced to grow up with the fear that at any point in time anybody could just walk into their school with a gun. It’s imperative that something must be done to make guns less accessible, though as someone who isn’t well versed in gun laws and the state of our policies, all I can really say is that we need stricter rules on who is or isn’t allowed to have a gun.
After watching the three videos, it’s clear that the most helpful method of preventing gun violence is to implement a policy that requires a license to acquire a firearm. In the few states that have implemented a licence requirement, gun related violence has gone way down, as it filters out both people who already have a criminal record as well as people who have histories of mental illness and have had interactions with a local police department. Enacting a policy that forces all gun-buyers to have extensive background checks, as well as a safety course, and a written application in all states would put significantly reduce the amount of gun related crimes. In other countries, there are different methods of preventing gun violence, like in Australia with the widespread firearm confiscation, or many countries in Europe make it incredibly hard to get a gun. Methods used in other countries that are successful in banning guns usually won’t work in the U.S. because our population is much too large for, say, a wide scale confiscation of guns to be effective. While these solutions would be the ideal, it would be very hard to successfully implement them in the U.S.
My position hasn’t changed, I still think guns are extremely dangerous and should be very difficult, or even impossible to obtain. Now that I’ve learned more methods of preventing gun violence, I realize that much more could be done in the U.S. than just stricter background checks. Learning more about what can be done has been a big eye opener to how behind most of the U.S. is in terms of gun safety.
Before I watched the video on the 2nd Amendment and the two videos on gun control my beliefs were that we should have stricter laws on gun control and change it to be so that not just anyone can buy a firearm. I feel that people who don’t need guns shouldn’t have guns, even though some people use it as a form of protection; I believe that there are other ways to protect yourself in which doesn’t include a firearm. I feel like our government isn’t doing enough enforcing when it comes to gun laws. The amount of school shootings we’ve had in a year is unbeleiveable and our government doesn’t seem to be doing much about it. I also feel that the government should make stricter requirements of age when it comes to purchasing a gun.
In the second video, it talked about how the background checking system wasn’t very effective when it came to stopping a dangerous person from buying a gun, thus making it very untrustworthy; it also brought up how there was an improved system in Massachuttes called the licensing system where the person buying the gun would have to sit through a firearm safety lesson, then go to the police department and from there the cops would obtain information (if any) from al local law enforcement agencies from where ever that person has lived. If they pass then they are allowed to own a firearm. In this video, they also expressed that the licensing system is better and more effective than the background checking system. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum said “ if you don’t ban all (as in guns) you might as well ban none”, people own guns for many reasons hunting, shooting targets, etc.
The 2nd amendment stated that we have the right to bear arms, this statement has been interpreted in many different ways. The video on the history of the second amendment states that this amendment was originally created to ensure strong militias. During the District of Colombia v Heller court case the Supreme Court ruled in hellers favor stating that, the second amendment assures us the individual right to possess a firearm in a state militia and to use firearms for “traditionally lawful purposes”, which includes self-defense.
After watching these videos I can conclude that even after hearing the background on the 2nd amendment, my view on gun control doesn’t change. America needs to do a better job enforcing gun laws in order to keep the people in this country safer.
My initial mindset about the Second Amendment is that I believe every person has the right to exercise it. However, I believe the amendment needs to be altered because modern times call for modern restrictions such as a limit on what types of guns can be in use or having stricter background checks in place such as adding a mental health exam. The recent school shootings have sparked a public debate about the right to bear arms and most of the school shooters involved have used an illegally obtained automatic rifle or had a mental health concern. As a student, I sometimes feel scared to go to school or to big public venues because I know what has happened in the past and I don’t want history to repeat itself. I feel as a nation we need to take action and use our resources to contact our government representatives and raise concern about owning guns and the dealing of guns to see if the second amendment fully applies to our evolving society today, especially if other citizens feel their safety is at risk.
The first video discusses the time period surrounding when the amendments were ratified. It then mentions circumstances today might not fit in with what the documents was trying to achieve, and may need revisions. The second video mentions background checks and how they have been elevated in recent history, but guns still aren’t always obtained legally because the dealers aren’t always legal. For example, people who participate in gun shows and buy guns from dealers there are not required to perform background checks while buying. It is the owners decision to make any checks they feel are necessary. The third video talks about how public opinion sways political leaders to feel scared when proposing opposing gun control laws because the majority won’t agree. Australia banned automatic rifles and forced all citizens who possessed them to give them up in a “buy them back” exchange. This made the country safer and Australian officials should feel the United States should follow in their footsteps.
My opinion about gun control remains the same and unchanged because I had plenty of background knowledge before watching the videos because I was interested about the current status of this public debate. I believe the second amendment should be in use, but enhanced so it makes the public safer. I think this debate won’t resolve and will continue to be talked and argued about because it could potentially be life threatening others and it has not yet been settled.
1.)I feel that something should be done to control guns and stop shootings from happening. We shouldn’t be morning all these people who have died in shootings. Especially young people like in the Parkland shooting. Additionally we shouldn’t have to fear for our safety when we go to school or a concert. I don’t know what the best method for doing this would be , but steps should be taken to regulate guns. We need to act now if we want to prevent future tragedies from happening.
2.)After watching the videos, I think that steps should be taken to control gun sales, and monitor them more closely. The third video stated that when countries that are smaller than the United States of America tried to outright ban guns, a number of people didn’t turn over their guns. In addition, many of the guns ended up on the black market, where they could be sold with no screening at all. We want to avoid lots of guns ending up on the black market like they did in these countries. The government could take steps to control who is able to purchase a gun. In Vox’s video, they talk about licensing, a more in depth screening that several states have adopted, involves in-person classes and checking multiple databases for a potentially dangerous background. Connecticut, one of the states that uses this process, showed noticeable drop in firearm suicides and homicides after it was initiated. This type of screening should be applied anywhere guns are sold. The licensing process could also be made even more in depth. It could also be lengthened to make it harder to be impulsive. They could get rid of private gun sales so that all the potential owners can be properly screened.
3.)My view has become more specific in how the situation should be handled. Before I didn’t have a detailed opinion but the videos helped me gain a better understanding. I learned about licensing, and how it makes does a more thorough check then regular screening. I think it would be hard to fully ban guns, because some people will always argue that they are necessary, but we should take steps toward limiting what types are available. Ones that pose little threat should be the only ones allowed. They should also severely limit who can get a gun and take into account what their reasoning for getting a gun is.
While my opinion on the gun debate has not changed after watching the videos has not changed, I do feel more educated on the subject. I never considered how meticulous the process of creating a gun safety laws would be. I think guns should be allowed in the home because you’re protecting your home, however if you’re protecting yourself I don’t think you should keep guns on you twenty-four-seven. It seems to be a difficult process to start because we have over 300 million guns, however officials and representatives have more than enough reason to make advancements towards a safer America. I feel there are three factors playing into the importance of gun laws. 1) What the person is trying to do/protect with the gun. 2) What to do about the guns already owned. 3) What to do about future gun owners. The first video brought up what the second amendment means and what it was used for. We owned guns to keep militias and to protect individuals in order to prevent authorities from coming to every little conflict in the cities. Which sheds light o factor number one. I think the process of more thorough background search is better highlights factor three. It mentioned Michigan as one of the states with a licensing system that makes it take weeks longer than the system most states have in place. I think this arrangement is a good one. Both of my parents are registered gun owners and since they’re in the house my brother and I have been taught a degree of gun safety and I’ve learned that even if you think you’re being safe you could still hurt yourself. I’ve learned about maintenance and the procedures of handling as well as to store the bullets in a separate place from the actual gun to keep others safe as well. I think that better checks will help prevent tragic events from happening, as well as show the public that we are taking serious steps in the right direction. Three weeks could buy people more time to alert forces of dangers and seek help. Three weeks to own a gun is literally saving lives. However, as video 3 mentioned there’s still an issue involving guns that have already been manufactured and purchased. We can’t do a buyback of all or even a large percentage of weapons and even if we got the semi-automatic ones handguns still cause about 80% of the assaults that take place in America. Ultimately the conversation about guns is a tricky, yet necessary one. I believe that guns should be better controlled yet we should still reserve the right to use them to protect ourselves at home. I do not think there’s a reason for anyone, not even law enforcement, to carry a gun on themselves outside of their home, and my opinion was not changed by the videos.
For as long as I can remember, guns have been a distant presence. I have never, ever seen a real gun in person that wasn’t in the hands of a cop or body guard. Nobody in my direct family or my relatives owns a gun. I think my lack of exposure to guns is in part due to my families mostly liberal values and Jewish values. So, off the bat, I don’t have a very wide perspective of guns. From what I do know from watching varied news sources and from what my friends say, I am positive that our country has a problem with mass shootings and school shootings. I don’t know the extent of how much guns are to blame, because there’s a saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Right now, I think that the second amendment should not be taken away. However, I still think background checks could be more extensive. I’ve heard that at places like gun shows, you don’t even need background checks, which I think there should be background checks. I don’t think banning all guns is a solution either, because there’s some statistic that there are more guns than people in the U.S., so people must really love guns. Getting rid of that many guns would be extremely costly, controversial, and probably ineffective.
After watching the videos, my opinion has not changed. In the first video, it mentions that the second amendment was created partly so militias could be formed if the national government was being oppressive. So, if that is the case, today, guns would not be necessary because we don’t have that problem. However, in 2008, a supreme court case set a precedent that guns didn’t need to be used for militias, so the argument of the amendments militia meaning is out of date. I strongly agree with the second videos need for licensing of guns along with background checks, as backgrounds checks have proved ineffective in spotting people with criminal records several times. Licensing of guns is not too radical for either side, so laws concerning licensing of guns could be passed with little resistance. Basically , licensing is an extra process after a background check that involves tests and other documents to obtain a gun. Since there is a lot in licensing a gun, the process usually takes a few weeks. In conclusion, I don’t think we can ban all guns, but we should pass more licensing laws.
My initial views on gun control are that I believe everybody deserves the right to protect themselves, with a firearm and feel safe, but I believe that some of the automatic weapons like ar 15 are unnecessary to be in anybody’s hands except for the military and law enforcement. The automatic machine guns are what is making all of these tragic mass shooting possible, and they should be collected by the government and destroyed. I also believe that there should be mandatory and very extensive background checks that check everything including social media because many people post things on social media that should make them ineligible to buy a firearm, because unfortuanatly in the past people have posted about attacks on social media and they have tragically carried through with it. lastly I believe that anybody who has ever been convicted of a violent crime should under no possible circumstances be able to buy a firearm.
After watching the videos my views have slightly changed. I still believe that automatic weapons should not be allowed in any civilian hands but I believe we shouldn’t go about getting rid of their use by collecting them. I now believe that we should stop manufacturing the Ammunition that is used in the automatic weapons because other countries have gone the collecting route and it has gone very badly and the average compliance rate in the 72 countries that tried collecting their automatic weapons was only 1 third compliance. I also believe now that are system of federal background checks needs to be totally revamped. At a gun store anybody that is trying To buy gun there has to go through a federal background check which is a very good law that I strongly agree with. The issue is that at gun shows anybody including somebody with a criminal record can buy a gun because there are no federal background checks for anybody that wants to buy a gun at a gun show. This is terrible because somebody with a criminal record a mile long could be able to buy an AR 15. Another huge issue is the background check system itself, as it is missing 8 million records. That is how Dylan Roof the Charleston church shooter, and the mass shooter in Texas, both of whom had a serious criminal record were able to buy guns and go on a killing spree. It is very sad that people with records that go under a background still can end up mass shooting, and there should be a call for a new background check system.
My preference and opinions on guns have wavered over the past few years based on the stories, arguments, debates and laws passed for gun control. In all honesty, the gun control and use of guns to buy have been very weak and not controlled compared to other countries and other items that have a certain age limit to buy and have the identification that you are old enough to buy that certain item. To buy alcohol, cigarettes and other tobacco and nicotine products, you must present your ID to the cashier before they are allowed to sell you that certain product. While at a gun convention, it is very easy to go up to a vendor and select and purchase a firearm with practically little identification needed. My other reasons why many people are getting up and arms about gun control is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. This is a result of bad mental states or diseases and just people need to be nicer to one another and not bully someone and that causes most mass shootings. The stats are based on either bullying, a hate towards a group of people, race, religion or sexuality and that is what is wrong and why many mass shootings have been happening.
After watching the videos and reading the article, my opinion still stands with me but has changed after hearing about the licensing system multiple states have started to implement. I feel like the system will help keep guns out of the wrong peoples hands and hopefully help minimize the amount of mass shootings in America. After watching all of the videos, I have realized that background checks aren’t enough and are only done at stores that sell guns. Private sales and gun conventions don’t need or use a background check and anyone can go and buy a gun matter. Looking at all of the numbers of people that are killed during shootings and mass shootings is scary because so many are killed duly based on someone’s mental illness or hate. No one in a country should have to deal with the constant fear of knowing anyone can freely buy a gun with no security or background checks and that’s exactly why gun control laws are too loose. All in all, my view on the 2nd amendment has not changed at all because I believe people should be able to own a gun to use for recreational use, hunting or just self defense and gun control laws should be stricter in general.
Gun Control
I believe that gun control is a good reform policy that should be focused on more in today’s society. There are people out in the world that have access to guns that they shouldn’t be in possession of. Open access to these weapons for those that aren’t responsible, law abiding citizens has become a growing concern in our country. There is also a lack of gun safety because often times those who have access to guns don’t always put them in a safe place. It appears that children are gaining more access to weapons in their homes and in the streets. In my opinion, gun control has become a growing issue, even though the gun control laws have increased. In the beginning, I believed that background checks were the best possible way to decrease gun violence. This has been proven to not be as effective as I hoped it would be. After watching the videos, I think that the license system is the best way to address gun control reform. The license system is a more extensive background check that helps law officials track guns that are in use. This could help track down those that are involved in gun violence, and hold them accountable.
In the second video, the data showed that Connecticut inforced the license system in 1995. After 1995, there was a decrease in homicides by guns and suicides by guns. Compared to Connecticut in 1995, Missouri had the license system in place but had it repealed in 2007. After being repealed their was an increase in homicides and suicides by guns. Others may use the fact that guns are used for self defense. People don’t necessarily have to use guns, there are other forms of self defense and there are other possible weapons to be used that won’t kill someone. Gun laws in Canada say that gun owners cannot bring their firearms outside of their homes even if it is hidden. The only people who can openly carry firearms are the people who need them for work. The data of homicides in Canada from 2017 had 21% of homicides by firearms while the U.S is at 37%. I personally think that Canada’s gun control laws are safer than the laws in the U.S. The idea of having the guns confined to the home would essentially decrease the amount of guns in the streets and less people would have them illegally. This could possibly be a factor in the lower crime rate that Canada has versus the U.S.
My opinion on gun control is that all Americans should have the right to own guns, but there should be restrictions on types of guns. Already fully automatic guns have been banned or made illegal, but most semi-automatic guns are still legal. I feel that if a gun can fire as fast a person can pull the trigger, then that gun should be banned. I feel also that if a gun has more than ten bullets in a magazine than it also should be banned. These changes to what guns are legal I feel could help stop mass shootings.
I also feel that the ability to get a gun should be made more difficult. Right now there are some requirements to get a gun. Most places where you can buy a gun require a background check and takes three days before you can get the gun. I feel that the background checks should be more thorough and there should also be mental health checks required to get a gun.
Another thing I think we should change is the amount of money gun lobbies can donate to politicians. Many times recently when gun reform is the topic in congress, too many politicians will fight to keep gun laws the way they are now because of the fact that their campaigns are being financed with large sums of money from gun lobbies. This is why I feel that nothing big has changed when it comes to guns.
After watching the videos my opinions on guns have not changed. I feel that the third video, the conservative look at gun reform, focused mainly on explaining why none of the current ideas for gun reform are valid and would not work instead of giving ideas as to how to prevent gun violence. In America, from the 1990s to now the number of mass shootings per year has gone up from about 3 per year to about 15 per year. That is over 5 times the amount only 30 years ago, so to just say that these ideas for gun reform shouldn’t even be debated over is outrageous. We should focus most of our efforts on fixing the gun situation in this country. If people can’t feel safe knowing that every day there could be someone ready to shoot into a crowd of people then Congress is not doing their job.
The liberal argument brought up some great points on gun licensing. Having a gun license nationwide would help reduce the number of shootings each year. I think that a gun license is a great start to fixing the solution but there is so much more we can do. If we increase the time in which it takes to get a gun it can help with impulsive buyers. I also think that if we increase the level of security on each gun’s safety (safety is usually a latch or lever that stops the trigger from being pulled) by including a fingerprint scanner as your safety then it can reduce the number of school shootings cause by kids who take their parents weapons. If we can unlock our phones with our fingerprints than why can’t we do the same with guns. By making a fingerprint safety a mandatory part of a gun it would allow for a more secure way to make sure your gun isn’t used by someone else. Anyone can add someone else’s fingerprint to their gun but it should be added at places like a gun store. Minors shouldn’t be allowed to have access to unlocking any gun. If you are not old enough to drink or vote then you shouldn’t be handling a gun.
My opinion on gun control is that the only gun you should be allowed to own is a hand gun. I don’t think there is any reason to own a weapon meant to kill another human especially a weapon like an ar-15 that is designed to kill multiple people in a short period of time. But I do understand that there is a second amendment and I do think that its important. the second amendment is the right to bare arms. I do think people should be allowed to own a hand gun for self defense in case of a home invasion where there life of someone they love is in danger. But I think that there should be more back ground checks to make it harder for someone to get a gun to do something bad with. And based on how many public shootings there has been I feel like that justifies for the crack down on gun control. I think it is worth a shot to see if a big crack down on gun control will make a difference. No one knowns for sure what would happen if we were to take away guns. But based on our actions I do feel like taking away guns may possibly make a difference, and if it doesn’t then clearly gun control isn’t the issue but I do believe it is worth a shot to see what would happen.
After watching the videos I still have my same point of view but some what altered. the second video talks about states that had gun licensing. This gun licensing what an three week process that accessed more data bases of police stations unlike the previous system that only took 108 seconds to access the FBI data base to find criminal records. This was a flawed system because there was multiple occasions where the FBI background check failed to find a criminal records in the FBI data base because it simply wasn’t put in. This allowed dangerous people to get a weapon in just 108 seconds. But states who had implemented this gun licensing method saw a large decrease in gun homicides and gun suicides. So I now think that this would be a better alternative then banning guns. The third video states that banning guns would not work due to the 300 million guns in the USA and the large amount of the population disagrees with a gun by back which would be people wouldn’t cooperate with a gun by back and could lead to more gun sales in places like the dark web which makes the situation worse. So I now believe that the idea to ban guns would not work.
Before watching these videos my views on gun control was that we should not be trying to ban more guns, but try and enforce stricter background checks. My personal history with using guns hasn’t been much, but I have gone up north to shoot targets with my grandfather who was apart of the 82nd Airborne and my father who accompanied my brothers and I. Most of my family members currently don’t own guns besides my dad and grandfather on my dads side. I’ve lived with guns for as long as I can remember and I’ve never felt differently about them.
After watching these three videos my views have not changed. It is impossible to take away all guns from every single person in America. If we attempted to it would be against the second amendment and it would never get rid of EVERY gun. If the people who are attempting to obtain guns REALLY want those guns, they will most likely obtain them through illegal acts. Even though the United States isn’t enforcing laws like this, some places are enforcing laws that limit a person’s right to legally keep a firearm. Mexico has extremely strict gun laws. In Mexico it is illegal to carry firearms or ammunition on you if you’re a foreigner(https://www.mexperience.com/mexicos-strict-gun-laws/). Currently in some states we only have background checks for legally obtaining firearms. This background check only is used though getting guns from a gun store. Background checks aren’t needed if you’re buying a gun through a private dealer or a gun show. Instead of getting rid of all guns we should be reinforcing stronger background checks by implementing a licensing system. Before you can get a gun you have to take a gun safety course. Then you have to go to your local police department and fill out some forms that include your personal background of your life. You also have to supply the police department with a fingerprint so they can do a background check. Implementing this system to all 50 of our states would increase the chances of a mentally unstable person or somebody who has a criminal background of easily obtaining, or obtaining a gun at all. In conclusion, we shouldn’t try and enforce super strict laws on our guns. We should implement a licensing system so that we can check if somebody has a mental illness that makes them not able to carry a firearm or to make sure they aren’t a criminal.
My previous views on gun control were quite similar to that of the VOX video, in that I don’t believe in the removal or buy back of all firearms, but rather an increase in regulation on background checks and licensing. I find the buy back of all guns in the US nearly impossible, though I strongly believe that our current system of the selling and distributing of guns is very ineffective and dangerous.
After watching the videos and learning about the history of the 2nd Amendment and the current set of restrictions on guns that we currently have in place today in American society, I strongly agree with the second videos idea of gun licensing. The fact that anybody can buy a gun at a gun show with no thorough background check, and the fact that many background checks are not accurate, prove we have an incredibly flawed system that allows for just about any dangerous person to purchase a gun.
The flaw in our system was proven to be true when it was discovered multiple mass shooters passed a background check due to the fact that their records were either not sent in to the FBI Database, or the records were not accurate. These mass shooters were able to purchase firearms and use them to kill tens of people and create such a large tragedy due to our own government having a broken system. This discovery blatantly proves that we need a change in our system in the very near future if we want to limit gun violence.
My view has changed in the sense that a new way of fixing our gun control issue had been brought to my attention. I know believe that the change that should be implemented is the licensing of gun owners. By forcing people who wish to own a gun through the very lengthy and complicated process of gaining a license to own a gun, not only is it getting rid of impulse gun buying, it is discouraging dangerous people from purchasing a firearm. This process also includes more effective background checks than the ones we have in place, and will make it even harder for these dangerous people to buy guns. Not only does the extent of the process discourage the purchase of firearms for purposes that aren’t absolutely necessary, it effectively runs thorough checks on gun buyers. Although my view has not changed, and I still believe gun control is necessary, I now have a new insight as to how our government should go about gun control.
My views on the second amendment is that I do not think it should give the right to bear arms to everyone. The reason why I think that not everyone should have the right to bear arms is that some people cannot be trusted with guns. If a person that has a past of violent crimes or terrorism, then they should not be trusted and allowed to have guns. The reason why I think this is that they might commit a similar crime to the one they did in their past again, and endanger or even kill other people. Another kind of person that I do not think should be allowed to carry guns are people that are mentally ill or unstable. It is not safe for people that are mentally ill to carry guns because there could be a moment were they could lose conscience of how dangerous the gun they have is, and accidentally shoot and hurt someone. I also think that background checks should be required but not always be too long. It is good to have background checks to stop criminals and violent people from having guns. These are my views of the second amendment and gun laws.
After watching the video, I kept the same views on which persons I think should and should not be allowed to have guns, but I changed my views on background checks. I used to think that background checks were useful and should be required, but should not be required to be too strong and too long. The videos changed my views on this because the short and weak background check is almost useless. The reason why it is almost useless is that the database it takes its information from is outdated, and two American mass shooters passed because they did not have any criminal background on the files their background check used. I think that strong background checks should be required by the government for all gun shops and private sellers using all databases that holds both the criminal history and mental state of the buyer. There are no disadvantages to strong background checks, except that it might be harder for gun companies and private sellers to sell guns, but it will stop them from selling to dangerous people. Strong background checks will take longer than the weak background checks, but there should be no reason to rush to buy a gun, unless you want to harm yourself or others. This is my views on guns and gun policies after watching the video.
There have been countless incidents of gun violence that I have recognized. From school shootings to terrorist attacks and the never ending police brutality in America, it is evident that they all revolve around one thing, guns misuse. In my opinion, if you are not an adult (over 21), an avid hunter or mentally stable, you should not need a gun. I also understand that many people argue guns as a source of protection from bad environments, etc however it is evident, especially in the police force, that this source of protection for yourself could also be a source of danger for another person. In the first video it explains that in the early days of the U.S, half of colonists owned guns by 1775. Because of their experience with the British, many felt that they were able to protect themselves by being armed. Slave owners, which made up the highest percentage of gun ownership at the time, used guns to prevent slaves from running away or rebelling. The colonists viewed the second amendment not for people’s protection but to enable citizens to be part of a collective militia and “avert nations military use at home”. The second video discusses the process of what people do (and do not do) now to ensure public safety when it comes to guns. The video explains that gun buyers only do background checks at official gun stores not unlicensed stores, however the background check we have now, which is supposed to prevent people with records from buying a gun, proves that dangerous people still do get guns despite checks. This is because gun stores run background checks off of outdated FBI databases, which is missing millions of records. This weakness allowed the Charleston Church shooter to be able to buy a gun despite his records. Also many of these “checks” only look at the good and already bad people, not any in between. However, 12 states have come up with a licensing system. Which includes taking firearm safety course before going to gun store, filling out an application at a police department, and stores are to run FBI and all local databases to check for a record, and a person’s mental health services. Licensing is proven to work better because it properly identifies people who shouldn’t have guns,and reduces impulsive gun purchases. It also delays people that want to harm themselves or others with a gun (takes 3 weeks instead of 108 secs). The last video argues that ideal gun control means that fewer guns = less gun crime. Gun control advocates say you should either ban all guns or none (which has no popular support). Many other countries have taken a step to ban guns altogether, for example, Austrailia made people give up certain guns to be destroyed after a shooting incident. This example may not work in the U.S because we have a lot more guns than many countries, which means many guns would still be available. The video also argues that
politicians contradict themselves by wanting to win the support of gun owners but also make mediocre efforts to ban “bad guns”. The video proposes that if supply control is the politicians answer they describe the policies proposed and tell us how those laws allow lawful gun owners to keep (and protect) themselves with firearms. My view on gun control has not changed after watching the three videos because they all supported my argument stated above even further by essentially saying that there should be less guns and more ways to requirements to own one.
Before watching the videos, my views on gun control are as follows. I believe citizens should be allowed to own a gun. People should be licensed to have or obtain a gun. A hunting license should be different than a gun owning licence. They should be more aware of who they are selling the gun too not just FBI background check. The guns should be stowed away until in use for the safety of others.
My parents themselves don’t own guns, but my grandpa does. He is a hunter and keeps them stowed away all year in a cupboard locked so tinier kids can’t get them. He has a hunting license and is very careful when using them. He understands the danger of weapons and why people are protesting to ban the use of guns in the United States.
The second amendment was created when our country still depended on militia’s. Now we have a strong military and police force that will protect us from danger. They will also fight to keep the wars and battles away from us. With that in mind I believe that keeping guns is ok as long as we are being very strict on who we are selling them to.
After watching the videos, I still feel the same about gun control in the United States. I agree with the second video on what Massachussettes are doing to help avoid the wrong people ending up with the guns. They need to more than just an FBI check. People are easily avoiding it with purchases at gun shows or on the balck market. There has to be an answer on what to do. In the video What should we do about guns? They are talking about how we should just get rid of all guns and everything is going to be ok. That is false because more than 325 million U.S citizens owns guns, and that would take way too long to get rid of them all. In Australia, they got rid of 700,000 guns out of 3 million. This was a good idea for Australia to help reduce the amount of guns. The problem with this is that if the U.S does the same, we would still have around 200 million guns left in America.
Overall, I believe that we need to be stricter to whom we are selling the guns to and what they will be using them. I also believe that we should sell less guns do to the fact that more than 325 million citizens already own guns.
My thoughts on gun control are that I believe that guns should be limited to the point that only semi automatics are sold. I believe this because a lot of school shootings happen because of automatic guns. The casualty rate will decrease a lot if the gun is semi automatic since you have to constantly pull the trigger on the gun. Automatic guns create more casualties because of how fast they fire, and the fact that you can hold onto the trigger. I also think that all people wishing to buy a gun should have a license. A license will help protect people since it decreases the chances of giving someone with malicious intent a gun.Licenses also help because the people with them want a gun really bad so they wait for a license, they take the weapons very seriously. People that get turned down by licenses shouldn’t have guns if they didn’t take it seriously to the point they were willing to wait for a license. The videos changed my perspective on gun control. I feel like everyone should be forced to get licenses as background checks can be faulty. I also believe that the government should update records because it would help with licenses and just in general(like jobs). The third video also changed my opinion, guns should not be confiscated and I feel like they should instead be limited. The only people that would turn in their guns are the people that follow the law. The criminals would still hide their guns, so the good people won’t have a way to defend themselves. These videos convinced me that banning them isn’t going to help, but instead trying to limit them possibly would. The third video also admit that banning auto rifles would help, although not much. Help is help though, so I support the banning of auto rifles and only want semi automatics to be sold. My opinion did change from hearing both sides, the conservative side did change my opinion. I believed the Australian model was a good model at first, but then I saw the huge differences. It would be a bad idea to try to do the same with the amount of guns in the U.S, and people would have to follow the law. Criminals obviously won’t follow the law and banning guns would increase the demand for them in the black market by a lot.
Before watching the three videos, my views on guns and gun control were as follows:
-The 2nd Amendment was originally created to support the creation of militias to ensure the citizens stood a fighting chance should the army be used against them.
-The purpose/interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has changed from when it was originally written to where it is today.
-All fifty states should be required by federal law to implement a licensing system.
-There is no reason law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be able to own certain types of guns for hunting.
-Certain types of guns, (namely semi-automatic rifles and handguns) should be more difficult to obtain than others.
My views after watching the three videos were for the most part unchanged, although I did learn some new things. The most notable thing I learned was how few states have implemented a license system for buying guns, I had previously expected it to be the majority of states. Starting with the history of the 2nd amendment, I believe there should be an edit made to the wording, as militias are completely irrelevant now. The United States has had a professional army since the end of the Vietnam War, and is the single most funded military out of any country in the world. When the 2nd amendment was written, farmers, patriots, and British soldiers all had more or less the same weapons. This made militias an effective way to protect towns or villages from any British harassment without needing help from the continental army. Fast forward to modern times and things are very different. The US Army is equipped with fully automatic assault rifles, sub-machine guns, explosives, armored vehicles, and more. An American attempting to hold off even one fully equipped soldier would be hard pressed to stand any chance against a M4. This shows how the meaning of the 2nd amendment has changed from the right to supply militias, to the right to self-defense via a firearm.
OK, so the meaning of the 2nd amendment isn’t exactly the same as it was when it was written, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be allowed to own guns at all, what if there’s a home invasion? That’s where we get to the more difficult subject, law-abiding citizens keeping firearms in their homes for self-defense. To start, every state should have an extensive background check, contact family members, perform mental stability tests and definitely enforce the need for a licensing system. At the very least, creating a mandatory wait time after the purchase before you can obtain your gun would lower the chance of the customer using it against themselves or someone else in an emotional state. In addition to this, many hunters are split on whether or not semi-automatic rifles should be allowed to be used for hunting. In my opinion, as long as semi-automatic rifles remain legal, there are very very few scenarios where they should be used for anything except hunting or target practice. Ineffective and dangerous as a self-defense weapon, there is little to no reason someone should keep a semi-automatic rifle in their home in case of a break-in, when they very well may do more harm than good. The guns that make the most sense to be weapons of self-defense are handguns. Small caliber, low penetration compared to rifles or shotguns, easy to use and ideal for closer ranges. Handguns however do account for the most firearm suicides and homicides out of any type of firearm, leading some people to believe they need more restrictions than the guns most commonly used in mass shootings. Despite this compelling argument, it is semi-automatic rifles that should be paid closer attention to when being purchased. These are the weapons typically used in mass shootings, and these are what should be more closely regulated. If laws are passed to make it harder to obtain these types of firearms, those restrictions will trickle down to other types of guns, making everyone safer.
In conclusion, my views before watching the videos were that the 2nd amendment has changed meaning since it was written, no gun-owning citizen would stand a chance against an armed soldier, law-abiding gun owners should be able to own semi-automatic rifles primarily for hunting, and handguns for self-defense if they desire. Added to my opinions from the videos was that every state should use a license system, more extensive background checks, and longer wait periods. Semi-automatic rifles should be the most difficult type of gun to purchase, and should only be used for hunting or target practice, it is overkill as a personal defense weapons and stricter laws obtaining would hopefully lower mass shootings in the future.
PART 1:
Like any other major and controversial debate, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has split America into two sides. One of these sides believes that everyone should have a right to a firearm, and the other believes that guns should be controlled and limited. Initially, I stood on the first side, and here’s why.
If we look at recent news in Michigan, we can see vapes such as Juul being linked to the deaths and illnesses of many people taking vape-related products. What the state government is doing is banning the selling of flavored vape products. However, this isn’t a very smart law as many people could be able to obtain flavored vape products from sources other than Michigan vape shops. In comparison, many politicians want to restrict and/or ban certain guns from being sold or used. If this were to be implemented, many people could just buy these guns off of other sources, such as the black market. There really is no point in banning or restricting items if they can be easily obtained illegally.
There should be extensive background checks when obtaining guns. Many states including Michigan recently implemented a new system called licensing, which makes it so the data and records of people wanting to buy weapons are more reliable than just a singular FBI background test, which only takes about 108 seconds to complete. The licensing process takes three weeks, which is very helpful. People wanting to impulsively obtain guns for specific current events can be distracted or have time to think and calm down before having a gun.
You should be able to carry a weapon anywhere you go (with the limitation of schools and government spaces). Some parents are concerned when their kid sees a person with a gun in a holster and begin to criticize them for doing so because they feel unprotected (I’ve seen too many complaints on Facebook to count). However, violence can happen at any moment and having a concealed gun in that situation for self-defense will be a life saver.
Lots of people seem to think that the Second Amendment was only referring to the weapons used in the time frame the Constitution was signed. The Constitution was meant to be flexible to change throughout time. People have used guns for malicious intent since they were created, and those weapons could deal lots of damage, just like the guns today. Not only that, but modern weapons have a much faster loading time, allowing for very dangerous situations to be avoided quickly and efficiently. Honestly, this whole argument can be answered with a very short answer when told that the 2nd Amendment was only meant for guns of their time:
Ok, sure, I’m going to use my cannon on the robbers in my house. Maybe I’ll spend around 30 seconds loading my musket, giving the robbers ample time to attack me. Wait a minute, let me just put my Minie Balls into my musket and give them lead poisoning while I’m at it, too.
PART 2:
Summary: The first video, created by History, goes into detail about how the Second Amendment came to be. It also talks about the Colombia vs. Heller Case, and how the Constitution was interpreted differently by different types of people.
One Epic Fact: More guns were owned by Americans than books or chairs after the Second Amendment was written.
Do my thoughts change?: No, because I fully support the Heller case, so in a way, I have become more confident in my stance.
Summary: The second video, created by Vox, talks about how there could be a solution to the amount of gun violence. They state that licensing could be able to keep people with bad intentions from obtaining guns more reliably.
One Epic Fact: Many surveyed Americans agree for Universal Background Checks, but even more surveyed Americans agree for licensing to take into effect.
Do my thoughts change?: No, as I mentioned above, I believe licensing should be implemented to many if not all fifty states.
Summary: The final video, created by PragerU, explains the theory of Common Sense Gun Control, less guns=less violence, to be obsolete unless there was a radical restriction on guns. It also explained how Australia’s example of gun control wouldn’t work in America because there are over 350 million guns in America.
One Epic Fact: While conservative states do not want gun bans, even the most liberal of states, such as Massachusetts and California, had failed gun bans as well.
Do my thoughts change?: No, I believe that we should not restrict or ban guns for many reasons, and this video explains a lot of them.
PART 3:
My stance on guns has not changed. In Part 1, I explained my stance on guns, and these three videos supported my original claims almost hand in hand. In order to obtain a true 0% in gun violence, we would have to eliminate all guns, which would be impossible. Restricting only a number of guns wouldn’t work, as other sources for these guns would be available. Adding a licensing system in all states, while it wouldn’t completely get rid of gun violence, would substantially decrease suicide and homicide rates. This allows more reliable background checks, and gives people ample time to think about what they are going to do and not do with a gun.
For a simplified thesis that explains my stance, we should protect the 2nd Amendment as is, keep from restricting and/or banning guns as these would create more problems, and obtain licensing in all fifty states. This ensures that Americans can feel protected in public and their own homes.
I think that we as a country need to make more attempts to decrease the number of homicides and suicides responsible by guns. Many laws and bans are proposed but few are followed through and little progress is being made. Certain bans on guns should be imposed and people should go through more thorough background checks before receiving a firearm. After watching the videos I understand the need for the second amendment in the past but circumstances have changed and my views on gun control haven’t altered since the videos. I realize that in the past we had state militias so owning a gun was important in order to be a part of that. But, in the present day, we no longer have small state militias so the need to own a gun is not as critical. Nowadays in 2019 mass shootings are sadly much more common compared to the past. At first, mass shootings were horrifying and uncommon, but now I feel that there are a few shootings a month and people are beginning to accept this instead of doing something to prevent them. Guns used to be used for protection but now people are using assault rifles and other high-tech guns to kill mobs of people for no reason.
One possible solution to this issue is to ban certain guns. People have no use for such advanced and dangerous guns, as I mentioned before we don’t use state militias anymore. Some also argue that guns are needed to protect themselves and their property but we don’t need assault rifles for that. Banning certain types of guns will help reduce the number of mass shootings which seem to be such an obvious issue with our country today. Another possible solution is to ban guns altogether. While this might not be the easiest law to pass or the most popular opinion it might be necessary if things continue the way they are. The Government has not yet proven they are able to control people and their use of guns. Some argue that it isn’t the gun that kills people, it’s the person who pulled the trigger, but without the gun would one person be able to kill over 10 people in a matter of seconds? By banning all guns in America the number of homicides and suicides due to guns would be significantly lower which should be our goal as a country. People’s lives should matter more than being able to own a gun.
My position on the ongoing debates over gun control is that they should not restrict the rights of gun owners. Believe that guns are used far more for good and fun then to do harm. I think that if they restricted gun rights it would only hurt the people who want to use guns in a good way. This is because the people who want to use guns to hunt or use recreationally will adhere to the laws, while the people who want to use guns in a bad way wont. If someone wants to do harm with a gun, a law preventing them from having a gun will not stop them. These people will still find ways to acquire guns if necessary. It would still be easy to buy a gun illegally if you wanted to after the government bans guns, so I do not think this would fix the issue. I think that instead of putting bans on guns, the government needs to help make sure that the people who will end up doing bad things with guns get the proper help that they need. I also think that it could be dangerous for only the people in power to have guns and citizens not able to own guns to protect themselves. After watching the 3 videos i am in agreeance with the conservative perspective. I think that the quote they showed about how if you ban do not ban all guns you shouldnt ban any makes lots of sense. If there are still guns out there for people to acquire then, they will still acquire them if they want too. With 325 million guns in the united states it is correct that the buy back just wouldn’t work. Even if 99.9 percent of gun owners turned in their guns it just takes one bad person with one gun to do harm. If the government makes it illegal to own guns, people who want to do illegal things with them will still find a way to get there hands on them and buy them. Ultimately in my opinion even though I do not believe the government should ban guns I genuinely do not have an idea of what they should do. It seems as though there is no solution to this ongoing problem and that is why it is such a major issue. The videos shown did not change my opinions on gun control because I feel very strongly about my current, conservative perspective.
I believe that the most beneficial option to our country is to create stricter gun laws. I value a person’s life over their ability to own a gun, that being said I am not pushing for an all out ban of guns. I also wish to get rid of assault rifles in the U.S.
These are the points shaping my beliefs:
The uptick in mass shootings leads me to believe that gun violence is prominent and the law we currently have in place are proving to be ineffective in preventing them.
One specific aspect of gun violence that particularly troubles me is the increasing popularity of school shootings. As a student required to attend school, it is hard to not take the amount of shooting that have taken place in schools in the last few years into consideration. School is meant to be a safe place for children to learn.
Another aspect of gun violence that has hit close to home is the targeting religious gatherings. It’s become especially hard to feel safe going to temple, high holidays in particular, since the Tree of Life synagogue shooting. Religious places are meant to be safe places for people to peacefully practice.
The second amendment was written in 1791, and written for the problems of 1791. American society has come a long way since then, and other old american writings have been interpreted differently throughout history to adapt to the times. An example is the Declaration of Independence when it says “all men are created equal”.
Assault rifles make it too easy to shoot many people in short amounts of time. Assault rifles are used in most mass shootings.
My main focus of reform is stronger background checks, most people wanting to open fire on peaceful gatherings tend to be mentally ill or have a violent past. I don’t think those struggling with mental illness should be in possession of a weapon as dangerous as a gun. They are more likely to make impulsive decisions due to their state of mind which they may not be in full control of. I’m also worried about those with criminal records or violent histories obtaining gun due to loopholes. The loophole im most familiar with is the gun shows that don;t require background checks.
I only want a stricter background checks rather than a complete ban of gun because I recognize the desire to own a gun. I’m aware of those who enjoy hunting although I’m personally not a fan. I mostly resonate with the self defense motivation of owning a gun. It’s important that everyone feels safe. I also know that the second amendment protects the right to bear arms and I do not wish to take away the right completely.
I want assault rifles to be taken away because I see them as too powerful and as more of weapons of war rather than defense.
After watching the videos my viewpoint has not completely changed but I have been challenged to think of the technicalities of laws I wish to be set into motion. The history of the 2nd amendment has only furthered my point in that its original intention of a militia does not apply to today and therefore there should be a rethinking of its meaning. The video conveying the conservative point of view puts into question the technicality of getting rid of assault rifles. However, just because it is hard does not mean it will not be worth it or a good idea. No matter what law or policy gets put in place there will be backlash. My value of the lives of people over gun rights remains just as important to me, so the rest of my ideals remain the same.
Before I watched the videos, my beliefs of gun control shouldn’t have the power to take guns away, but there should be to some extent of where the dangerous weapons end up and how they’re used. My belief of guns in general is a double-edged sword. Guns can provide safety, but they could also ensure death. I believe both parties of the debate are scared, and being scared creates panic. Panic caused by people who have other guns or the intent to harm. I understand the panic; And a gun helps us quench the need for defence, a gun to many equates to an immediate cease of that threat. Though I believe, in most cases, the threat is the gun. Gun control shouldn’t have the power to take guns away, but there should be to some extent of where the dangerous weapons end up and how they’re used.
My father is a proud gun-owner. Although, he doesn’t have impressive guns posted up on the walls of his house, he is a proud NRA (National Rifle Association) member. He has a picture of the society symbol on the left side of the back windshield of his truck. He lives in California, close to LA, but wishes to live in Texas. Perhaps because they have less Democratic power and Republican/Conservative views are vibrant, but one beneficial of Texas is that the state also has the shall-issue jurisdiction. Shall issue law is where once the basic requirements are met by the buyer, a permit to be a gun-owner must be given. I believe anyone who wants a gun can easily create fake documents to receive that permit if they wanted to; and that’s all they would have to do too.
My father restates the argument of other people should have the right to own guns due to the 2nd Amendment, but times have changed. When the amendment was made, guns were manual and took five minutes to reload. They are now automatic weapons that are able to injure more than twenty people in one minute, and guns are popularly becoming a common accessory in America. Gun control should have advanced alongside the gun development. Our government says it will protect us, but is giving us access and looking away from the damage we bring onto ourselves and are letting it continue. They got used to the idea of elementaries, high schools, colleges, even kindergartens getting shot up for 30 years. Gun control is one of the main prespects America should be fighting for; something we should already have.
After I watched the videos, my beliefs that there should be gun control didn’t change. When I watched the conservative video, it only served to confuse me as to what exactly the conservative side would do about the shootings. They see gun control as ineffective, they see it as an attack on gun owners, so do they have a better idea? There’s a problem and gun control is a solution. In the liberal video, they explained that the licensing process was helped in certain states. The minor background check did seem inadequate compared to the process. If a gun is what you want for safety, I believe you can wait 3 weeks, instead of just 108 seconds. That might not be the solution, but something needs to be done for this horrific crisis in America.
My views on gun control before watching the videos were very pro-gun, I strongly believe that anybody who can pass a background test should have a gun if they so desire. In my immediate family, they are very anti-gun and expressively liberal in the ideas about guns, but my extended family often owns guns and regularly shoots them. My ideals come mostly from the direct translation of the 2nd amendment, in which it states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, personally I interpret this as a means of If u want to buy a gun, then you should be able to buy a gun. In all 3 videos, none of them were particularly anti-gun, but instead suggested a new version of a background check, or in the third video explained how a buy-back system would fail. There is nothing wrong with wanted a more thorough check, such as the checks presented in the second video, personally I feel that if those checks were implemented nationally it would help greatly. The licensing system does not infringe upon your rights, because it doesn’t restrict the type of gun or ammo you are buying, in fact it really doesn’t do anything to the average American trying to buy a gun but make the process a few weeks longer. In the third video, they talk about the example in Australia and explain how it would not work in America due to the sheer amount of guns. I believe that there are more cultural reasons that this would not work in America, simply because there is such a large following around the gun community that even trying to get 1/3 or 1/4 to voluntarily give up their guns would be a massive undertaking, and would not be worth it.
my views on the gun control debate have not changed, in fact they have been reinforced. after watching these videos and truly seeing how easy it is for someone clinically ill or mentally non-capable to acquire a gun, I would much rather be armed and able to protect myself, than to add risk to the situation and promote more restrictions on already law abiding citizens. I also now think that if politicians really wanted to help the country in any way shape or form, on the gun control debate they should really try to implement the licensing system, after watching the second video, and realizing that it is a much safer and better way to still acquire a gun without the feeling of getting something taken away from you, I feel it is the best option. Although I do not come from a gun owning family, I most likely will own a gun in the future, this is entirely due to the ability of someone who is mentally ill to acquire a weapon, and if someone who is trying to harm me or anyone I care about in the future I would rather be able to do something about compared to being the victim.
I think that gun control is necessary in this age that we live in. Technology and the capabilities of weapons have increased in quality since the late 18th Century, and our legislature needs to adjust. Unfortunately, there are so many guns in the US that could belong to dangerous people who bought their guns before the regulations got much more strict, and so many guns in the US in general, that placing a limit on guns won’t be enough to regulate the amount of mass shootings.
After watching the videos, I my opinion hasn’t changed much on the issue, but I didn’t know much about gun control history, so I was able to learn a lot from the History Channel video. I agree with the Vox opinion that a licensing system would be of great use to this country to prevent impulsive gun purchases and to make sure dangerous people who are evading the background checks can be thwarted from getting a gun. The PragerU opinion doesn’t entirely resonate with me personally, because they didn’t exactly propose a solution to gun violence, they just pointed out a problem. Background checks aren’t enough, since the one database they source to is very outdated, and criminals are able to slip by them. On top of that, if someone buys a gun at a gun show or from a private sale, then they don’t even need to go through a background check. The system has to be changed. The licensing system is much more precise in its search of as many federal and state databases as possible, not just one incomplete one. Considering how little gun violence has affected our state specifically, I haven’t had much knowledge on the subject, but now that I know more about the dire straits that we are facing as a country, I want to know as much as I can about what’s happening. There are so many different ideas as to how we can make a change to benefit the lives of all Americans, and I hope that all of us can find out those ideas together as United Nation, like our forefathers wanted us to be. We’re very fortunate to have a licensing system and a better way to filter out the dangerous people that want to buy guns here in Michigan, but there are 32 states that have to deal with any person just having to go through a simple background check, and that doesn’t sit right with me at all.
For me, gun control is a very controversial topic that has many reasons to agree, disagree, or be undecided for your stance about the issue. I personally believe that there are certain situations where a weapon is needed for self defence. Although I also feel that people use “self defence” as a reason to have a gun but choose to use it in a bad way like harming others. In my beliefs I feel as though if only our authorities like our police officers should be able to have and carry guns, and that guns are not our only way for self defence since there are weapons like pepper spray and in certain areas the use of tasers. Limiting the privileges for the use of guns to only the authorities would most likely decrease the amount of gun violence and death happening in America, in my opinion.
Now that I have learned new information on gun control, I feel that I am more on the liberal side of gun usage in America. As I understood more about the conservative view of gun control, I felt as If I didn’t agree to everything some conservatives viewed as the best decision. In the 3rd video they say that bannings and certain regulations to gun control has failed like in states of Massachustts and California. Basically saying that trying to constitaly ban guns isn’t going to work since so many of our citizens in American own guns and not many would even turn them in which would make the ban not worth it. They even brought up the topic from Sen. Howard Metzenbaum when he said “If you don’t ban all guns, you might as well ban none.” Basically saying that there’s no point in banning certain guns when you’re allowing other guns for usage. Personally I do feel that there are certain guns and weapons that shouldn’t be in the hands of citizens, and only for our authorities.
How I feel that I am more on the Liberal side is that the 2nd video talks about the ways that we can fix the system that allows people to own guns. For instance places that arent gun shops like gun shows that don’t do background checks which could cause for a gun to get into the wrong persons hands. Now they are changing the system to where even if you do go to a gun show or gun shop that the background check isn’t the only thing that you would need to do to get a gun. You would need to go through the background check, taking a class to understand gun usage, and going into your local police department so more information can be done. These processes could identify a criminal or a good Samaritan. It also slows the rate of getting a gun by 3 weeks since without these processes it would take about 140 seconds by just doing the background check.
My initial views on gun control were that there should be limitations on who should be able to attain a gun by using more thorough background checks. I do not have any personal bad experiences with guns, but through social media and the news, I have seen too many bad things happen. Not just through domestic violence and suicide but also in shootings such as The Boston Marathon or The Parkland school shooting. I personally do not think that children, teachers or parents should have to worry about safety at school. School should be a place to learn, and that should be the main focus in your mind, and not how you would escape a shooter. Although they are dangerous, they should not be completely outlawed because there are already guns all around America, and the government can’t just make them disappear so it wouldn’t solve the problem. I could even possibly make it worse because they would then just be sold on the black market and still eventually find their way into the hands of the wrong person. I have done research on this topic before, mostly because i do believe that it is something that could directly affect the way in which I live my everyday life.
After watching the videos, my opinions have not changed much. I already knew about most of the facts stated in the videos, but I did not entirely agree with all of the opinions that were voiced throughout. In the 3rd video, What Should We Do About Guns, the narrator says that a possible solution for gun violence is to just eliminate them. As I said before, it wouldn’t work. Its like drugs, even if the government says that they are illegal, people still find a way to become in possession of them and use them. Even if gun laws are passed, prohibiting guns, it cannot possibly stop the millions of gun owners to just stop using their guns. It is also not fair to them because in the second amendment it says that citizens do have the right to bear arms and that privilege should not be taken away because of the few people that decide to use firearms in the wrong way. I think that it is now becoming an even larger issue though, because the more incidents with guns that happen in America, more people in America will start to purchase guns in order to protect themselves from harm/keep themselves safe, in case of an emergency. After reflecting upon what I watched in the videos, still believe that a more throughout background check is necessary, and also what is mentioned in the second video, The Gun Solution We’re Not Talking About. Overall, change needs to happen and something needs to be done to create a safer community for everyone.
The Constitution was officially signed on September 17, 1787, this document establishes our government, rights people have, and the laws that are placed. A part of the Constitution that is apart of our daily lives today, was not included when the Constitution was first being made. This part of the document is the Bill of Rights, this includes the ten amendments that states the rights we have as American Citizens. The second amendment states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. I believe this right was acceptable at first because people wanted freedom to do what they wanted, and it also was essential for protection, but I believe now it has harmed more people than it has protected. I think it is ridiculous innocent children at school and people at concerts and literally anyone, anywhere, are being shot for no reason and only because people have this right. It scares me that my generation and the future ones are going to grow up with the fear to do everyday life things because it’s a possibility to be shot in a mass shooting. I do understand that people in some places live in harsher conditions then I and it feels as though they would need protection because of where they live, but if you eliminate the right to bear arms completely, other than the military to protect us from forign issues, then there will be less things people will need to protect themselves from.
After watching the three videos my views have not changed significantly. I do see some of the issues to the solutions I had, but I still think there’s changes that need to be made. In the beginning, when the second amendment was written, it was initially for the people to become involved in the militia, not as much for personal protection. Therefore, now that we have a strong national army wouldn’t this make the current amendment irrelevant? The irelvancy of this amendment now brings me to my next point, because this amendment is so broad and could be thought of as of the previous definition, for the people to be apart of the militia, or the current definition of personal protection, this makes it have so many interpretations. So, I believe that if the supreme court wants to debate guntrol, of whether or not to keep this amendment, maybe they should consider reforming it instead of taking it away completely. Also, if the opposing side believes that taking away all guns will create more issues in the country, then I think the government should create a more significant consequence for not complying. Because of all the evidence I gathered from my prior knowledge and my new from the videos I think that this “plague of mass shootings” needs to be ended by a certain solutions to make the people of this country feel safe.