Gun Control is Not the Answer- A Refutation

In this article titled, Gun Control is not the Answer: Opposing View, writer Robert Farago argues against government attempts to limit gun ownership by criminals. Farago’s opposition to gun control revolves around two main arguments. First, he argues that government intervention won’t work because evil people exist and will continue to do evil regardless of law. Farago’s second argument is the idea that “killers” should be locked up in prisons or mental institutions, to restrict their access to opportunities for violence.

Farago’s first argument is explained with the quote: “There will always be evil men among us. Truth be told, they view gun control laws with the same contempt that they view laws against murder”. Although this may be a true statement in that evil people exist, simply using it as an argument against gun control is illogical. The refutation for this argument lies in the fact that some weapons are deadlier than others. Although people with violent intentions do exist, their potential to destroy human life could be vastly limited if their access to the deadliest of weapons was decreased. With effective gun control laws, access to guns to potential criminals would be greatly reduced. If the San Bernardino killer only had access to a lesser weapon such as a knife, the human toll would be greatly minimized. Thus, evil existing in humans has nothing to do with gun control, as reducing access to the deadliest of weapons could save many lives.

The second argument laid out claims “there’s only one way to stop killers from killing: Put them where they can’t get access to a gun, knife, explosives, car or any other lethal weapon. Put them in jail or a secure mental institution.” This argument ignores one of the biggest problems facing the United States today. Currently, the United States holds a larger percentage of its population behind bars than any other country in the world. Mass incarceration would only be made worse if Farago’s suggestions were fulfilled. Also, there isn’t a consideration of the selection process for incarceration or institutionalization. How would we pick out these “killers” out of a crowd? Farago leaves too many unanswered questions, and therefore his blanket argument to “lock up the killers” is invalid.

“There’s only one way to stop killers from killing: Put them where they can’t get access to a gun, knife, explosives, car or any other lethal weapon. Put them in jail or a secure mental institution.”

In conclusion, Farago makes two main claims that are easily refuted. The argument concerning the existence of evil is irrelevant. Also, the second claim regarding the incarceration of killers is unsubstantiated. For these reasons Farago’s opinion article is easily negated.

Open Carry Laws Benefit Public Safety? – A Refutation

Joe Pierce, the co-founder of OpenCarry.org, argues that open carry laws benefit public safety in an article he wrote for US News and Report.

Pierce argues is that open carry is not a privilege that the state grants to citizens but a constitutional right. He writes that, “the right to openly bear arms for security and self-defense is enshrined not only in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but also in a majority of state constitutions.” Pierce asserts that open carry is “very much in keeping with the framers’ view of the constitutional right to bear arms.”

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “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.” The Constitution has always been interpreted in various ways. There is really no way to know what exactly the founding fathers meant when they wrote about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Pierce states, “Today, in a whopping 29 states (that’s a majority for those who are keeping score), any law-abiding citizen who is not prohibited by law from possessing firearms may openly carry with no government permit or license required.”

This is a chilling fact: in nearly three fifths of the country, any law-abiding citizen who isn’t forbidden by law may openly carry a gun without a permit or license. The fact that there is so little regulation already should be a red flag that some regulation is required.

Pierce goes on to argue that open carry also provides several benefits for public safety. He writes that “criminals make a large effort to try to hide their weapons, but open carriers wear their firearms properly holstered and go out willing to subject themselves to the scrutiny of their neighbors and of law enforcement.”

Pierce is arguing that having open carried weapons is safer than trying to hide them. We believe that neither is safe. Carrying guns in public, whether concealed or open carry, is inherently dangerous. There are even more opportunities for intentional or unintentional violence to occur. Concealed weapons are a safety risk, but the unregulated open carrying of firearms is an even bigger one!

 

A Refutation to: A Criminologist’s Case against Gun Control

Every day gun violence has become part of every news channels headlines, yet there are people who are against gun control who believe laws wouldn’t make a difference to the increasing number of deaths caused by gun violence. An article written in the Times called, A Criminologist’s Case against Gun Control, published by Jacob Davidson: interviews James Jacobs, a law professor who talks about his concerns regarding the new approach to gun violence in America where he opposes gun control.

According to Jacobs, the number of firearms has increased by 10 million per year but there is no correlation between the amounts of firearms people own compared to the amount of gun violence. He believes that people always assume that gun violence is getting worse when in reality the fatality caused by gun violence has decreased. Jacobs states, “That most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders. There are twice as many suicides in the U.S. by guns as there are homicides.” And “30,000 people have been killed with guns, but what’s not said is that 20,000 of them took their own lives.” Jacobs justifies his argument of being against gun control by stating that suicidal gun violence isn’t equally important compared to killing others with guns.  Whether a life was taken by others or themselves we need to remember that every life matters because that means someone lost a loved one, a friend, a colleague to gun violence. The main point is that a precious life was lost by gun violence and that needs to stop! According to Jacobs, politicians on both sides of the gun control debate, support the idea of focusing more to keep firearms away from the mentally ill. The problem with only focusing on the issue of the mentally ill would require us to clearly and comprehensively define as to who would be considered mentally ill. And the fact is that defining who is mentally ill is almost an impossible task. If the government did indeed get as far as defining who the mentally ill is, the government would have a difficult time making their database public because of people’s privacy issues. Another question is how does a person get officially designated as mentally ill and be identified before he or she tries to buy a gun. “Jacobs also believes the law enforcement should aim at the people who are more likely to commit crimes with firearms such as: drug dealers, gang members, people who have engaged in violent crimes in the past, and the areas in which they operate. Again only focusing on people who are most likely to commit a gun crime isn’t a good idea because gun violence in the past has proved that the people who have committed crimes with firearms don’t have obvious records unless you dig deep. Therefore creating laws which apply to everyone will gradually keep people safe.

A Refutation to: Are Firearm Background Checks Unconstitutional?

 

For many American citizens, owning firearms has been a staple of American culture that dates back to the creation of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. In many ways, owning a firearm has become traditional for many people, and it is no surprise that many American citizens argue that firearm background checks are a violation of civil rights. According to Why Background Checks Dont Work, an article on World Net Daily, Jeff Knox (the director of the Fire Arms Coalition) argues that it is unfair and perhaps unconstitutional that firearm buyers must fill out documentation and provide proof of identification to firearm sellers when purchasing a firearm. Knox‘s logic is as follows: if the right for citizens to vote is implemented by the U.S. Constitution, and that by “requiring identification to vote is a violation of civil rights,” then by the same token, requiring identification to buy a firearm is a violation of civil rights as well because the right to bear arms is also attached to the U.S. constitution. Jeff Knox uses the U.S. Constitution as a pin to falsely justify that background checks are unconstitutional. Just because voters are not required to prove their identification to vote does not warrant the same process for purchasing firearms. Background checks are intended to keep firearms out of the hands of people who have criminal backgrounds and/or people with records of mental illness. Further, the Second Amendment was included into the U.S. Constitution in 1791, during a time of foreign oppression. It was intended to dispel any distant governments by raising a ‘citizen army.’ However, the idea that citizen’s shouldn’t have to undergo a background check because it was the way it was done so in the past, is a fallacy of tradition- a mistake in reasoning. The meaning of the Second Amendment in preset day society raises questions as to the Second Amendments intended scope, however; the fact that firearms no longer need to fire a single shot before requiring a reload is a clear indication that the way we interpret the Second Amendment must also reflect the way advances in firearm technology effects society, while also considering that the United States no longer needs a ‘citizen army.’