Hello everyone. This is a serious issue that I am going to be talking about today, gun control. How should it be addressed, what's the solution and what causes gun violence?
After the events at Sandy Nook Elementary the topic of Gun Control has been talked about a lot in the political media, however each approach from both sides of the political coin doesn't seem to be thinking logically. The Conservative approach is more guns, today the NRA held a conference in which they stated that they ask for Congress to pass a law in which there will be an armed officer at every school in the nation.
The Spokesman also said "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." I'm sorry but this does not solve the problem. First of all the gunman could be thinking that they are the good guy and the officer is the bad guy and think that what he's doing is good for everyone.
The Spokesman continued to say "Why is it ok for Secret Service to be armed and protecting the President?" Because he is a political target and as soon as he earns the title of President of The United States he is the target of many terrorist organizations and any crazed US citizen that thinks "In order to save the nation I'll kill the President." The President as soon as he is entered into office he has a political bulls eye on his back.
Now the spokesman did go on to say that if there was an armed officer at Sandy Nook that there wouldn't have been many lives lost that day, I do agree with that but it's their way of approaching gun control that annoys me.
The Spokesman believed that if there was an armed security officer the shooting wouldn't have happened and many shootings would be prevented, he went on to say how come the word "gun" is a bad word. "It's not the guns' fault for this"
President Obama on the other hand has put into place a law that bans assault weapon sales in the US to the general public. Many would agree that this is a right approach but there are still many ways people can work around this law.
The Conservative's approach is more guns mean less violence, having armed guards at every school means no one with the intention of shooting students will be discouraged and not attempt to kill.
The Democrat approach is less guns means less gun violence.
I agree with certain approaches but both sides fail to think of what the gunmen will think, they could easily buy a rifle and decided to shoot the armed guards and proceed into the school to kill. Criminals could find a way to buy an assault rifle from out of the US and still own an assault rifle without the Government's knowledge.
Both sides fail to think of the gunmen in mind and instead focus on a single plan that they think will be full proof and prevent shootings. It doesn't matter how strong or how smart and well placed a defense is, someone somewhere or something will find a way around the defense and proceed to attack.
I can't even offer a solution to the issue of control and how we can prevent it, my solution could have a hole in the plan that someone else will notice but I failed to think about. We still do need to think of a way to prevent this issue but we need to think outside the box and think out every scenario and situation where someone will work around the plan, when we start doing that we will start to have a better idea of how to prevent an event like Sandy Nook.
Don't get me wrong it's good that we're thinking of ways to prevent these things from happening, but it's the way politicians and both sides approach the scenario. "Our plan is fool proof and will work"
Thank you for reading.
After the events at Sandy Nook Elementary the topic of Gun Control has been talked about a lot in the political media, however each approach from both sides of the political coin doesn't seem to be thinking logically. The Conservative approach is more guns, today the NRA held a conference in which they stated that they ask for Congress to pass a law in which there will be an armed officer at every school in the nation.
The Spokesman also said "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." I'm sorry but this does not solve the problem. First of all the gunman could be thinking that they are the good guy and the officer is the bad guy and think that what he's doing is good for everyone.
The Spokesman continued to say "Why is it ok for Secret Service to be armed and protecting the President?" Because he is a political target and as soon as he earns the title of President of The United States he is the target of many terrorist organizations and any crazed US citizen that thinks "In order to save the nation I'll kill the President." The President as soon as he is entered into office he has a political bulls eye on his back.
Now the spokesman did go on to say that if there was an armed officer at Sandy Nook that there wouldn't have been many lives lost that day, I do agree with that but it's their way of approaching gun control that annoys me.
The Spokesman believed that if there was an armed security officer the shooting wouldn't have happened and many shootings would be prevented, he went on to say how come the word "gun" is a bad word. "It's not the guns' fault for this"
President Obama on the other hand has put into place a law that bans assault weapon sales in the US to the general public. Many would agree that this is a right approach but there are still many ways people can work around this law.
The Conservative's approach is more guns mean less violence, having armed guards at every school means no one with the intention of shooting students will be discouraged and not attempt to kill.
The Democrat approach is less guns means less gun violence.
I agree with certain approaches but both sides fail to think of what the gunmen will think, they could easily buy a rifle and decided to shoot the armed guards and proceed into the school to kill. Criminals could find a way to buy an assault rifle from out of the US and still own an assault rifle without the Government's knowledge.
Both sides fail to think of the gunmen in mind and instead focus on a single plan that they think will be full proof and prevent shootings. It doesn't matter how strong or how smart and well placed a defense is, someone somewhere or something will find a way around the defense and proceed to attack.
I can't even offer a solution to the issue of control and how we can prevent it, my solution could have a hole in the plan that someone else will notice but I failed to think about. We still do need to think of a way to prevent this issue but we need to think outside the box and think out every scenario and situation where someone will work around the plan, when we start doing that we will start to have a better idea of how to prevent an event like Sandy Nook.
Don't get me wrong it's good that we're thinking of ways to prevent these things from happening, but it's the way politicians and both sides approach the scenario. "Our plan is fool proof and will work"
Thank you for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment