To open this blog, personally, I do believe that citizens
have the right to bear arms. This is a topic that most have an argument for
both yay and nay. In an area that is high with crime rate wouldn’t be right to
have something to defend your property, those you love, most especially
yourself? LaFollete (2007) did bring up a valid point when he stated “we could
restrict who own guns, how they obtain them, where and how they store them, and
where and how they carry them.” (p. 2769) However, to argue, I think the
biggest concern most of all is “gun violence” not necessarily bearing arms.
Frattaroli (2015) stated “identifying modifiable risk factors for gun violence
and developing interventions targeting those specific factors have been shown
to measurably reduce gun violence.” (p. 291) that is what is currently going on
in this nation right now. You never hear in the media about man shoots another
man in self-defense, it always ends up in gun violence whether it’s a terrorist
like act, gang violence, etc…
As a moral question in regards to bearing arms, even if
religious, do we believe it is our fundamental right to bear arms? LaFollete
(2007) discussed the question “what makes a right fundamental?” because it
simply protects our interest. Which can also mean having a particular interests
and desires to happen. (p. 2786) Having served in law enforcement and the
military bearing arms in the world I was exposed too made me a firm believer of
possessing a firearm. Maybe twenty or thirty years ago where the world was not
as crazy I would reconsider but in today’s world it is difficult to do that. We
have to constantly look over our shoulders to become vigilant and ensure those
around us to include ourselves are safe. Blanco (2016) stated “the notion that
carrying guns and firearms are not necessarily the primary factor in the
occurrences of crimes, it is the user and owner of the gun.” (p. 622)
LaFollete (2007) stated “we cannot restrict or put conditions
on fundamental rights expect for compelling reasons yet we cannot forfeit their
fundamental rights expect for overwhelming reasons.” (p. 2795) Which is the
debate of taking away guns with all the chaos that ensues in the media with
mass shootings and the news about police. Which can go into other discussion if
you take away guns from civilians might as well take it away from the police
too right? Blanco (2016) explains the right to bear arms in the most simplistic
way possible. He stated “the right of the people to keep and bear arms was
necessary not only to preserve the security of the individual within his home,
but also to secure the freedom of the polity from all foes—including the
tyranny of a strong, centralized government.” (p.624)
What happens if anarchy ensues? Wouldn’t you want to feel
safe by protecting yourself? I know it may seem bias with my background but
that is how I see this world today. So I understand the arguments as to why we
should bear arms, but one has to realize that it is not the guns that kill
people, it’s the actual person who possesses the gun. To play devils advocate
there has to be a compromise, I understand that part, but you cannot take the
guns away completely. Yet, I do stand with my position of every citizen
deserves the “right to bear arms,” for those who oppose it, I just cannot find
the words to explain if something does happen to them when needing a gun was
crucial.
References:
Blanco, D. V. (2016). The gun control debate: Why experience
and culture matters. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(8),
620-634. doi:10.1080/01900692.2015.1028639
Frattaroli, S., McGinty, E. E., Barnhorst, A., &
Greenberg, S. (2015). Gun violence restraining orders: Alternative or adjunct
to mental Health‐Based restrictions on firearms? Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 33(2-3), 290-307. doi:10.1002/bsl.2173
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing
No comments:
Post a Comment