Michelle Marchante / Staff Writer
michelle.marchante@fiusm.com
Looking through FIUSM, I came across an article questioning the Second Amendment. While I respect the writer’s opinion, I must respectfully disagree with him. Taking guns out of the home will never be the answer to make life in America safer. It will only make it more dangerous. For example, Chicago has some of the toughest Gun Control Laws in the country, yet it’s also known as the “murder capital” of the United States for having the most homicides every year.
Even with Chicago’s tough restrictions, criminals still have guns because no matter what laws are placed, criminals will always find a way to get weapons illegally. Knowing that no one they attack can retaliate only leads to more crimes. It’s basically a free for all. They’re the ultimate predators. This past year, however, a new concealed carry law made it legal for Illinois residents to carry guns. Contrary to what Gun Control advocates suggested, the crime rate in Chicago dropped for the first time since 1965.
“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted,” Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association said during an interview with The Washington Times. “Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect.”
The police aren’t superheroes. They won’t always be able to make it on time and often victims aren’t in a position to call 9-1-1, but the possibility of having a gun could stop a criminal in their tracks.
Another thing people don’t realize is that, just like someone with a gun can kill, someone with a gun can save the day – and they do. The problem is that a gun-owner saving a life rarely makes the news, and if it does, it doesn’t become a national headline. Last year in Chicago, for example, a man fired a shot and stopped an armed robber inside an AT&T store when he tried to escape police. The police hailed the man as a “model citizen” for protecting the customers, but it never made national news.
The right to bear arms is found in our country’s constitution, showing just how important and necessary it is for a free nation. It not only gives people the right to protect themselves in a worst-case scenario, it gives people the security a nation which advocates for “liberty and justice for all” needs to ensure that they will never be at the mercy of a tyrannical government. Without the Second Amendment we wouldn’t just be at the mercy of our own government but at the mercy of any United States enemy.
The right to bear arms is vital to our freedom, especially now when tensions are rising worldwide. With terrorist groups threatening the safety and security of everyone, the tension between Russia and The United States’ near palpability and now with China warning the United States to stop flying near their new military bases on international waters, it seems conflict will be unavoidable.
Just because certain individuals use their right to own guns wrongly does not mean that every other law-abiding gun owning citizen must suffer the consequences, yet that’s what anti-gun people are basically asking for whenever there is a shooting. Yes, it’s horrible. Yes, that person needs to be condemned, but no, the entire United States does not need to be banned from having guns because of it.
Criminals will always find a weapon to use. In China, guns are completely illegal yet a couple years ago a man caused a massacre in a school by using a knife. Horrible tragedies can happen, but being able to protect yourself can stop them.
In the words of our first president, George Washington, “From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
Frankly, if anyone really has a problem with people being able to own guns, they can always move somewhere where it’s not allowed. China, Cuba, or North Korea seem like good prospects.
See the other side: The Second Amendment needs amending
Bringing up Chicago solely does not help your argument, neither does bringing up China, Cuba or North Korea in a terrible attempt to show that oppressive countries are the only ones that restrict gun ownership. You could also bring up the Netherlands which only allow police and hunters to own guns, not citizens who use them for self defense. But the Netherlands sounds like a good place to live so why bring that one up? Also bringing up Chicago’s restrictive gun laws and blaming the violence on it, another example that was obviously omitted was Northern Ireland which has one of the most lenient gun control laws in the world and of course an even worse history of violence.
If you actually type "Murder Captial of the US" into google, Detroit, New Orleans, and Oakland come up. If you type "Murder Capital of the USA" you get an article talking about how violent crimes in Chicago and New York are actually much lower than in small rural communities.
If you look up your Chicago AT&T man, you find that the police actually considered arresting your "model citizen" after he fired towards them (the police).
And to say suggest a war between the US and the Russian Federation, or the US and China is patently absurd. None of the three largest militaries in the world are going to even consider attacking either other. And even if they did, have you ever heard the phrase "Don’t start a Land War in Asia"? War between these 3 nations wouldn’t involve soldiers, it would involve ICBMs and Drones. What’s your pea shooter going to do against a nuke?
In the end I have to ask, what was the point of writing this article? And I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, I mean it in a literal critical sense. You say taking guns out of the home isn’t the answer. So what is? You don’t provide any idea of your own, you just say other ideas are wrong. This article lacks a purpose other than to sit in a corner, arms crossed, and grumpily say "no." You might have learned this in High School as writing your paper around a thesis statement. You need a reason to write, otherwise you get the disjointed ramble you produced here.
I want a serious answer to that too. What is your idea?
I can’t believe FIU would actually publish this.
I can’t believe FIU would actually publish this.
Why? Being able to hear both sides of a debate is a good thing. This is just one pro-gun article published in a sea of very left-wing articles. I’m more concerned that FIU would publish an article last semester which said that "Religion is a disease, a social form of bullying" and that "religion continues to suck the vitality out of the human race", and then promote that author to Director of FIU Student Media.
I don’t think the comment is directed at the content of the article, simple the fact that it is so poorly written.
So glad to see someone brave enough at FIU to take on the stereotypical Gov.-is-always-the-solution nonsense mantras and that you have unpredictable opinions, given your last articles were more popular collegiate opinions. It seems you’re genuine, especially with your candid barb at the end. ;)
Gun control in the form of ‘no guns’ is big government undermining the constitution and democracy in order to ineffectively and clumsily solve problems.