Due to the alarming increase in mass shootings in the past few years, the gun control debate has been revived. Nearly everyone has an opinion, each citing moral reasoning, historical evidence, or political evidence for their argument. But ultimately, one opinion will be represented by federal law, and with a president sharing tears with families who lost small children to a mass shooting, it is a good bet that there will be more gun control.
Many people, including the author of this particular article, are looking forward to the measures taken by the government to decrease gun violence. One advocate for more gun control is our own U.S. history teacher, Travis Brockschmidt. Brockschmidt said, “Assault weapons and multiple shot clips should be banned by the government. They serve no purpose but to kill people.” When studying rhetoric, students are taught to give an anti-thesis, a point against your own opinion, but one doesn’t come to mind when Brockschmidt’s quote is considered.
There is an abundance of arguments against the banning of assault rifles, one of which is that the second amendment protects the right of every citizen to own any firearm they wish. During the interview, Brockschmidt pointed out that the second amendment reads: “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.” If the second amendment protects the right of every citizen to own whatever firearm they please, then why does the amendment go on about militias and keeping states secure? Probably because it was written when the idea of foreign troops marching into any town and attacking citizens didn’t sound ridiculous. We have a very powerful military. They’re armed so we don’t have to be.
Another argument is that if we take assault weapons away from the average citizen, then criminals would be armed and do-gooders wouldn’t be. The idea is to make assault weapons scarce and to increase government surveillance on weapon manufacturing, not to mention the fact that the law-abiding citizen will still have guns.
It’s also said that banning assault weapons will only force mass murderers to use other weapons, like improvised explosions and vehicles. If that argument is logical, then we should also let high-powered explosives and tanks be available to the public, as well.
So, there is no logical argument against gun control that comes to mind, but if you think you have one that isn’t covered in the article, feel free to leave a comment. Debate is one of the best things humans have made. Fully-automatic weapons aren’t.