Prisoners have made crossbows out of newspapers, glue, bits of plastic and other everyday supplies to assault security guards and other prisoners. Baseball bats, if incorrectly used, could be used to murder, or at least seriously injure, several people before being stopped. So why not ban baseball bats, glue and newspapers on campus? Or if a really muscular student like Josh Stevens or Roberto Asencio wanted to strangle a little guy like me to death in the restroom while no one else was around, I have no doubt that they could under the right circumstances. However, I know both Stevens and Asencio on a first name basis, and neither of them would dare to do such a thing. They are extremely kind, law-abiding individuals. Intent makes a world of difference. In addition, many violent criminals have admitted to mental problems and violent fantasies. In fact, according to the CNN article, Quick said he had fantasies of cutting people’s faces off and wearing them as masks. If that isn’t a sign of mental illness, I don’t know what is. Some use mental illnesses and handicaps as reasons to legislate stricter federal weapon control laws and increased background checks. They reason that if some people cannot handle weapons responsibly, it should be harder for everyone to own a firearm to keep everyone safe. In ethical terms, they are appealing to utilitarianism, the moral rule that creates the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. One problem I foresee with that plan is the betterment of the group at the expense of the individual. It’s the mentality of a mother who takes away a toy because one kid used it incorrectly and got hurt with it, regardless of how many children used the toy correctly and enjoyed it. As a responsible kid, that kind of discipline never made sense to me. I would rather take the time teach the one child to use the toy correctly than take it away from everyone. I think state governments should be able to oversee how difficult it is to obtain a firearm. States, not the federal government, should decide on how intensive background checks should be. However, as the Second Amendment states, “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Therefore, anything short of completely taking weapons away is open for debate at the state level. I also believe we don’t do enough to help the mentally handicapped. We shut up the mentally ill in psycho wards so they will be out of sight and out of mind, but that clearly isn’t enough. I think the best way to care for the mentally or emotionally impaired is to start caring for them. They deserve better than just a prescription (if they even get that much). They deserve someone who will listen and help them through their difficulties, whether that person be a trained psychiatric counselor or a close friend or you or me. That’s how we’re going to solve the violence problem, not with a piece of legislation that bans guns. | I know a good number of conservitives that have a problem with the idea of any kind of regulation behind gun ownership, but I don’t find it unreasonable to at least require a certain level of education on weapon responsibility, or a basic background check. It’s not considered an infringement of our rights to require people applying for a hunting license to take a hunter’s safety course, so why would it be unreasonable to require someone to take a class or attain a license to be able to go into a store and buy a rifle? It’s required for handguns, and justifiably so. I’m not saying make it impossible to attain a weapon, just that it couldn’t hurt to do more to ensure that we aren’t letting mentally unstable people pick up a gun. Knives are a much trickier subject to cover with guns, which is half their danger. They’re small, very easy to hide, and in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing, can be considered more dangerous than a gun. Like I said before, I usually like to have a knife on me, but I fully acknowledge the dangers of the tool in my pocket. Moreover, that’s how I view having a knife on me; it’s a tool. It can open boxes, pry things open, slice an apple, it’s a very useful item that just happens to be capable of being implemented as a self-defense tool. The thing about knives that most people that carry them have to realize is that there are very defined rules as to when a knife can still be defined as a personal tool, and when it reaches the status of being a weapon. The law states a clearly defined length that the blade can be and still be carried, which varies depending on if it’s a fixed blade of a jackknife. For the most part, a knife needs to be carried in a way that is clearly visible, or you risk being charged with carrying a concealed weapon. I can’t say a whole lot on the rules for carrying knives, because there are already a great deal of rules in place, and they are clearly defined. I’m not going to put them in this publication, but they’re easy enough to look up if you’re curious In summation, I don’t see the harm in trying to do more to educate people on responsible weapon use, and possibly the idea of some form of testing or qualifying for a license to own a weapon. This is America, there are enough crazy people out there that can come up with more than enough creative ways to make life hell for us all, why make it any easier to put a gun in their hands? |
2 Comments
|
Like us on facebook for the latest Boone campus news!
Categories
All
Archives
April 2013
Sponsors |