Gun control has been a very hot topic in recent years, and for good reason. Post Sandy Hook it has been evident that there is a problem, and that we should do everything in our power to prevent children, their parents, and communities as a whole to go through the devastation caused by incidents similar to that of Sandy Hook. Since 2013 there has been over 1,000 mass shootings in the U.S. Back in 2009 Molly Ivens wrote the op-ed titled “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” and I believe it has more significance today than it ever has. In this Op-ed she explains her stance on the issue. As an owner of a gun in rural America, Molly Irvin surprisingly persuaded me, however my experiences lead me to believe a different solution is required
…show more content…
In my experience the 2nd amendment has always been that one set-in-stone, concrete example of why we shouldn’t have gun control. Time and time again you here . However Ivens attacks this position head on, insisting that we should focus on the part that many people seem to overlook. Just as she did at the beginning at the story when she says “I’m not anti-gun I’m pro-knife” she opens this claim with the statement “of course support the Second Amendment.”, this allows me to bypass the initial urge to right off this passage as “some liberal trying to take away my rights” but instead paints the picture of someone who understands their rights but is intelligent enough to identify that there is a problem. She continues as she says “I believe it means exactly what it says: But 14 year old boys are not part of a regulated militia.” This got me thinking. While i can’t agree with her claim that the second amendment supports gun control, she completely neglected to mention the part that says “the right to bear arms”, she can’t pick and choose half an amendment because it supports your opinion. But is that so different than me? Had I only been telling half the story? Maybe the second amendment is just as much about military rights as individuals. The change from militia to national guard also seems to foreshadow a theme that re-emerges very quickly in this op-ed . It is at this …show more content…
The use of cars as an example as they are only given to those who have passed a test and the government knows who owns a car.” Yet again this really took me aback, remembering that the first time I shot a gun was at a minimum half a decade before I first was behind the wheel of a car. “Guns are literally the power to kill” But still the licensing process and regulations on cars, something that has obvious practical use and purpose, has better regulation than firearms. This takes me back to the many tedious hours spent in driving school and the time period that seemed like an eternity to me between earning my temporary permit and my actual license, and even after years of driving I still have to wait until I’m 18 to get full driving privileges. While for the rest of her claims, I feel are not completely true, I completely agree with her here. Is the responsibility of driving so much greater of a responsibility than owning a gun to justify the vast difference in regulations between the two? Of course not. As Ivens points out, with cars we ”restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns.”, and i have a very difficult arguing with this
In my experience the 2nd amendment has always been that one set-in-stone, concrete example of why we shouldn’t have gun control. Time and time again you here . However Ivens attacks this position head on, insisting that we should focus on the part that many people seem to overlook. Just as she did at the beginning at the story when she says “I’m not anti-gun I’m pro-knife” she opens this claim with the statement “of course support the Second Amendment.”, this allows me to bypass the initial urge to right off this passage as “some liberal trying to take away my rights” but instead paints the picture of someone who understands their rights but is intelligent enough to identify that there is a problem. She continues as she says “I believe it means exactly what it says: But 14 year old boys are not part of a regulated militia.” This got me thinking. While i can’t agree with her claim that the second amendment supports gun control, she completely neglected to mention the part that says “the right to bear arms”, she can’t pick and choose half an amendment because it supports your opinion. But is that so different than me? Had I only been telling half the story? Maybe the second amendment is just as much about military rights as individuals. The change from militia to national guard also seems to foreshadow a theme that re-emerges very quickly in this op-ed . It is at this …show more content…
The use of cars as an example as they are only given to those who have passed a test and the government knows who owns a car.” Yet again this really took me aback, remembering that the first time I shot a gun was at a minimum half a decade before I first was behind the wheel of a car. “Guns are literally the power to kill” But still the licensing process and regulations on cars, something that has obvious practical use and purpose, has better regulation than firearms. This takes me back to the many tedious hours spent in driving school and the time period that seemed like an eternity to me between earning my temporary permit and my actual license, and even after years of driving I still have to wait until I’m 18 to get full driving privileges. While for the rest of her claims, I feel are not completely true, I completely agree with her here. Is the responsibility of driving so much greater of a responsibility than owning a gun to justify the vast difference in regulations between the two? Of course not. As Ivens points out, with cars we ”restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns.”, and i have a very difficult arguing with this