Monday, February 20, 2017

Gun Control is a bit inefficient

Gun Control, the idea that making a law can prevent people from breaking the law. Of course Gun Control is a deterrent, it blocks people from attaining a gun to easily and that is of course important. It should be a bit difficult to obtain something that can harm someone else, however, Gun Control may have gone to far.

Remember the Constitution? Remember the bit that says "the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Maybe you remember that, but you probably would fail to bring the part that says "Except in places where the government doesnt want you to have a gun" to memory. Perhaps that's because there is no part in the entire constitution that lays that out. I fail to see how the words "Shall not be infringed" is interpreted as, "Shall be infringed where ever government deems it be infringed." For the side that appears to be most prevalent in the education system currently, the Left sure has an odd time interpreting things such as the constitution, sadly many on the Right that could be influential are too busy starting businesses to worry about politics. According to the Small Business administration, small business Owners are 25% more likely to be Republican, and Trump won small business owners by around 20% according to polling by Manta, a small business social network.

One of the largest, and easily most unconstitutional branches of gun control is Gun free zones, areas where the right to bear arms is very, very much infringed. What is really idiotic about this whole idea is not that people can't carry guns in an area, it's the fact that only law abiding citizens abide by the law, a criminal who would actually shoot someone, or plans on shooting someone would certainly never care if the place where the criminal chose to bring the gun was a gun free zone. The idea that someone who plans on shooting people, which is very much illegal, would try to keep to the laws and not bring a gun to a place where he/she knows that all law abiding citizens will be unprotected is ignorance at the highest level.

One bright senator, Dianne Feinstein makes a clearly watertight argument for gun free zones, "When a Gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in, that's human nature." Clearly all criminals intent on killing others are highly sentimental people that would feel guilty if they shot an unarmed person, Wow! This is the kind of highly intellectual thinking that brings forth gun free zones. Sadly, facts don't necessarily agree with Dianne Feinstein. According to Crime Prevention Research Center, only about 1% of mass Shootings happen in areas where citizens have the right to carry a firearm, around 80+% of mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun free zones, mass shootings being any shooting that includes 4 or more victims. Police are essential in stopping a shooter, but in many gun free zones, the response time can be multiple minutes for a police officer to arrive, which is simply to much time given for the shooter.

Not only are Gun Free zones unconstitutional, but it is blatantly clear that they are breeding grounds for danger and only give the shooter a sense of safety. Only law abiding citizens abide by the law, the very definition of a criminal is someone who breaks the law, why on earth would we expect a criminal to adhere to laws when breaking them would give the would-be shooter free reign in an area with no one to resist them.

Pride and Skepticism

   Personally, as a tenant of a healthy life I believe one should consistently question what they believe, how, why, who, what, when, and where, among a myriad of other 'self checks and balances'. Questioning your beliefs strengthens oneself. When one truly evaluates what they believe, removing themselves from as much bias as possible, they will either emerge from the evaluation with a stronger belief in what they had or with a new perspective that one did not see before. This doesn't mean what they believed before was wrong, simply that they recognize something else as right. With an ever changing society and government, this self vetting is crucial.      However, it is evident that many on all sides of the spectrum have too much pride to truly question themselves. Why would you question yourself if you're already right, right? The answer is simple. As stated previously, one can look at other options and possibly strengthen their own beliefs through the fallacy they find in other beliefs or become 'enlightened' to new perspectives. Refusing to question oneself and ones actions creates a sort of disillusion. Both parties on all ends of the political spectrum are drowning in such pride and disillusionment. Nobody wants to admit the other is wrong, therefore inhibiting forward motion. As a liberal, I will easily denounce the actions of the alt-left. Violence, especially in this situation, is never the answer and is in fact counter-productive. Hillary's email scandal? Stupid.  Someone with such high position and such important and covert information should not make such mistakes whether accidental or not. And again I will admit that not enough people from my political end of the spectrum (the left) are denouncing this as necessary. However, this as aforementioned, is not a faulty committed on solely one side. Michael Flynn ladies and gentlemen. A huge mistake. At such high level of government in total power and control, these are not things that should be slipping through our fingers. In fact, they didn't! Trump was aware of the scandal three weeks before and failed to act on it. Whether the conversations were on sanctions or not, it is pretty evident that these phone calls should not have been had. In a position of that high power you don't need to give up your freedom and all of your enjoyment but you also can't be calling Russia and just talking to them. Betsy DeVos. Essentially earning her position through campaign donations, managed to get elected without ever having worked in a public school or having ever herself, or her children, paying student loan debts (which as secretary of education, yes, she will be dealing with). DeVos admitted all of this in her vetting session with the senate so I encourage all, especially students, to listen to the words of our new secretary of education! But where is the outrage? Where are the republicans or the democrats voting on Trumps picks in the senate, where are they saying "Look. This was stupid. Lets really think about who we're putting in here and question why they were put here. This was our fault, we take the blame. Now lets fix it". Granted some of this has happened, some republicans did vote against DeVos (to whom I give some amount of respect). But it is clearly not happening at the scale it has needed to. One should never vote out of mere loyalty. One should always be skeptical and look at something (as best as they can) with no ties to one group, or no ties so strong, that they will put loyalty to their party or loyalty to money over the good of the American people. Republicans may still vote republican and democrats might still vote democrat even after relieving themselves from party ties as best they can. But that is fine. As long as people are handing in their pride and surrounding everything with some sort of skepticism, no matter how right they feel it is, the American people can in the future be protected from people like Betsy DeVos or others who might have slipped through the cracks.