This seems to be an issue that has massively permeated my life this week. Not only is it constantly in the news, but it is in my classes too. In Race, Crime, and Law we watched a video where a man was filming police interactions with the community, and one of the officers felt the need to give him a PSA to tell the world. This PSA said that they would appreciate it if people stopped carrying guns. Then, in The Social World, we are assigned a research project regarding what type of person is in favor or against gun control.
Gun control is everywhere, but it's interesting to see how it is handled in the two different states that I call home. In Nebraska, gun control is opposed by many because of the use they have with regards to hunting. Concealed weapons are legal, and guns have a legally justifiable purpose. However in New York City, there isn't such a justifiable purpose. It can be argued that guns are only used in New York City if they are killing people instead of animals. This causes the NYPD to take action to get these guns off the street. This results in phenomenon such as stop and frisk. Practices like this are racially profiling and don't actually result in clearing the streets of these weapons.
Therefore, what does it really mean to support gun control? How would law enforcement go about controlling the presence of firearms in our country, and what implication would this have on a system that is already so racially charged?
That's the thing. What the US government is doing now Canada has tried. In Canada it ended in confiscations based on bureaucrat's opinions, and cause hundreds of law abiding citizens become criminals. Creating another black market will be the outcome of any gun bans. Therefore create rules about who can get them, but keep the guns legal.
ReplyDelete