%5B1%5D.jpg)
Article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-miket0407oct04,0,3733024.column?coll=orl_news_util
Gun control issue has been one the the most controversial issues in the U.S history. Currently, many people believe that the guns should be banned because of of high gun crime rate. However, the article, Gun control doesn't protect us--guns do, provides a different view on the gun control issue. A view, that is not commonly sustained by many people, is that cops cannot protect you, so protect yourselves on your own! This view is supported from various examples sfrom the article. For instance, when one calls 911 in an emergency and asks "What can I do?" Then the question that can be interpreted from this is: "What can they do?" Probably, nothing. Hence, the writer argues that it is better for the citizens to have guns on them than just relying on the cops, which seems valid as far as I concern.
After the Columbine High School shooting, the government did not change the gun laws. As a result, the shooting in Verginia Tech happens, but the law still does not change. Although these massacres occur, why doesn't the government change the constitution? Is it because they have tight connections to NRA (National Rifle Association)? Or are they just lazy to change the laws? Either way, the result is that the government does not even bother to consider this gun issue. This is probably the primary reason why the author wrote this article. Personally, I am a person who disagrees with the gun possessions, but after reading this article, my mind changed a little. Besides those massacres, other gun crimes occur daily in the U.S. The funny thing is that the victims often call 911 or rely some other people when these incidents happen, which means that the bad guys have the possession of the guns. These bad guys threaten the victims with guns in order to fulfill their wants (although it's questionable how they got the guns). However, this threat can be minimized if the victims hold on to guns. If victims have possession of guns then, this also would be a threat to the criminals. Hence, I believe it is better for the U.S citizens to hold on to a handgun all the time because they do not know when would the crimes occur. Also, I believe the background checks must be more rigorous before people hold on to possession of guns. Guns should be distributed to those who are active citizens because guns are not just toys that can be possessed by any people. As an article states, "responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly." Hence, responsible citizens must hold on to the guns.
To be honest, I do not know how well this system will work, but I'm pretty sure that this would lessen the gun crime rates because all the people will live under the fear. The U.S government may be reprehensible to this fear because they would still not change the gun laws. However, people must not give up and continue fight against the government as Michael Moore does. His provocative films desmonstrates sad truths in the U.S, which need to be addressed quickly. Therefore, it would be sad for people to live under fear of guns, but ironically, in that way they can be more protective from guns.
Gun control issue has been one the the most controversial issues in the U.S history. Currently, many people believe that the guns should be banned because of of high gun crime rate. However, the article, Gun control doesn't protect us--guns do, provides a different view on the gun control issue. A view, that is not commonly sustained by many people, is that cops cannot protect you, so protect yourselves on your own! This view is supported from various examples sfrom the article. For instance, when one calls 911 in an emergency and asks "What can I do?" Then the question that can be interpreted from this is: "What can they do?" Probably, nothing. Hence, the writer argues that it is better for the citizens to have guns on them than just relying on the cops, which seems valid as far as I concern.
After the Columbine High School shooting, the government did not change the gun laws. As a result, the shooting in Verginia Tech happens, but the law still does not change. Although these massacres occur, why doesn't the government change the constitution? Is it because they have tight connections to NRA (National Rifle Association)? Or are they just lazy to change the laws? Either way, the result is that the government does not even bother to consider this gun issue. This is probably the primary reason why the author wrote this article. Personally, I am a person who disagrees with the gun possessions, but after reading this article, my mind changed a little. Besides those massacres, other gun crimes occur daily in the U.S. The funny thing is that the victims often call 911 or rely some other people when these incidents happen, which means that the bad guys have the possession of the guns. These bad guys threaten the victims with guns in order to fulfill their wants (although it's questionable how they got the guns). However, this threat can be minimized if the victims hold on to guns. If victims have possession of guns then, this also would be a threat to the criminals. Hence, I believe it is better for the U.S citizens to hold on to a handgun all the time because they do not know when would the crimes occur. Also, I believe the background checks must be more rigorous before people hold on to possession of guns. Guns should be distributed to those who are active citizens because guns are not just toys that can be possessed by any people. As an article states, "responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly." Hence, responsible citizens must hold on to the guns.
To be honest, I do not know how well this system will work, but I'm pretty sure that this would lessen the gun crime rates because all the people will live under the fear. The U.S government may be reprehensible to this fear because they would still not change the gun laws. However, people must not give up and continue fight against the government as Michael Moore does. His provocative films desmonstrates sad truths in the U.S, which need to be addressed quickly. Therefore, it would be sad for people to live under fear of guns, but ironically, in that way they can be more protective from guns.
