Home
   
   
Thursday, 09 February 2012
 

We've Moved!

Now visit us at: www.TheAppalachianOnline.com

Old Archives will contine to be served from this address.


 


Gun control policies not a bad idea Print E-mail
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Active Image

While he was campaigning, Obama frequently spoke of the increasing hardships of the middle classes and the progressive frustration they have experienced over the failure of government officials to keep their promises.

While in Pennsylvania, he gave a few examples.

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy… as a way to explain their frustrations,” he said.

Of course, this outraged Pennsylvanians, who claimed they were much more than rural folk who cling to their guns and memorize their Bibles.

And along with an extensive history of pro-gun control ideals, gun rights advocates found the statement particularly offensive.

They began questioning whether the government would continue to uphold the second amendment, the right to bear arms.

Not long before Obama was elected, however, he made a promise.

“I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away,” he said.

According to the Chicago Tribune, buyers across the country began voting with their feet after the last presidential election, flocking to gun stores to stock up on assault rifles, handguns and ammunition.

But if you think about it, it’s unfortunate that anyone should feel the need to buy a gun, other than for the simple purpose of hunting and sport shooting, in the first place.

Self-defense is the foremost reason for owning handguns, though owning handguns provides the ability to injure and, ultimately, to kill.

According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, residents of homes where a gun is present are five times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns.

The same study found that those who own guns in the home are 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household or friend than an intruder.

And the likeliness that the gun will be handy, within arms reach when an intruder decides to pop in?

Highly unlikely.

Though I’m not arguing to allow someone to hurt you or a loved on, resistance has always been the best policy, as people are generally more likely to react negatively to aggressive behavior.

In 1994, Bobby Crabtree thought his daughter was over at a friends’ house, and upon arriving at home during the wee hours of the morning, heard a noise coming from the closet of his daughter’s room. 

His daughter, who thought it’d be funny to play a practical joke on her father, opened the door and jumped out.

Crabtree, suspecting an unwanted visitor, was armed with his .357-caliber pistol.

Out of immediate response, he shot his daughter in the neck.

She died 12 hours later.

I believe Obama said it best: “You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago.”

Many believe he’s on a rampage to close down the doors of every single ammunition-selling business in the United States.

They point to his past support of bans against the sell of handguns, and especially allude to his proposal to enforce a 500% tax increase on gun purchases while senator in Illinois.

However, I argue that his past record simply proposed the preventive measure for the ability of criminals to easily access weapons.

So, gun owners, aspiring gun owners, gun rights advocates: I supposed anything is possible.

Obama may still be in support of gun control, and he may attempt to enact legislation in support of his ideals.

But though it is true Obama has the power to encourage a policy against gun ownership, I encourage you to save your pennies.

Perhaps all the money spent on guns could instead be infused into an education program for the prevention of violence, a stronger criminal justice system or a better local police department.

It’d be a little hypocritical to spend your money on a weapon in order to ensure your safety.

Go out and buy something else.

Go buy a security system. Buy a few extra locks for your doors.

But don’t buy death in something you can hold in your hand. 

Emily Melton, a junior communication major from Charlotte, is a news reporter.
Trackback(0)
Comments (4)Add Comment
...
written by Burt, February 25, 2009
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY


Dear Obama, if you have ANY sense at all . . .

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about

20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded
up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:


List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies
are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12
months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience
and the other historical l f acts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of
this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

In RECENTLY RELEASED documents, an astonishing fact has come to light: During WWII the Japanese had a DISTINCT and URGENT plan to bomb and invade the U.S., and decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED! TERRORISTS, so banner Obama: TAKE NOTE!



check some facts!
written by Arch Stanton, February 25, 2009
Dr. Kellerman's NEJM study was discredited long ago: for example, those guns "in the home" included those brought into homes by armed intruders. Totally biased.

If some one kicks in my door, I will be holding a firearm; at that instant a cell phone or security system is worthless. You are free to make other choices.
Professor Emeritus, Duke University
written by David Warren, February 25, 2009
The writer of this comment on gun control policies in American has done a brilliant job of identifying the issues and mounting a reasonable and rational basis for supporting President Obama's position on the Second Amendment. While it is a complex issue, there are some compelling common sense responses to the hard-line gun rights advocates who often seem not willing to listen to common sense. Would that the national media write commentaries on this subject in the manner of The Appalachian. Congratulations.
...
written by Alex Serrano, February 25, 2009
2nd amendment was to protect the citizens against the tyranny of government and criminals love gun control laws.They don't obey them anyways.People are dangerous, not guns. I have a gun, and it hasn't harmed anyone.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
 

 

 

© Copyright 1996 - 2009 ASU Student Publications