Gun Control My VT View

According to statistics from a survey in 1994 people that used a firearm in self defense about 15% of them said that if they hadn’t used the gun in self defense they’re almost certain they would have died. There is no way to argue that guns can save lives but people would say they can take lives too, but if you were to ban firearms would you really be stopping the criminals? If it’s a crime to own a gun then how would that stop someone who doesn’t mind breaking laws? You would just be leaving civilians with no means to defend them self without getting close to the attacker. I’ve heard so many times that why take the rights from a law abiding citizen you can’t stop the criminals because criminals don’t follow the laws.

During my interviews with people that range from lobbyist all the way to competitive shooter. All of them had one thing that they always believed in and that’s that criminals don’t follow the laws that’s why they are criminals. Adam Nielsen a competitive shooter said that if you were to simply ban guns the only people you will be taking them from are the law abiding citizens because criminals don’t care if it’s illegal they will find a way to get them if they want them. All of the interviewees seemed to agree that guns are a tool that can be a danger but if handled properly they can be a powerful tool to defend one’s self.

The view on guns being a tool is not only the view of the people that I interviewed but also in the court case of Heller vs. DC Heller was applying for a permit to carry a handgun. Being a police officer he had the ability to handle a firearm safely, but still the request of a permit he was denied and then went to court because he felt this was against his 2^nd amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller and around a year later another case was open to argue if this right applied to the states as well and that case was also favored towards McDonald who wanted the right to carry a firearm. People fight what is already written in the constitution and would cause great controversy if changed. Each side is fighting for what they think is right but one side has the 2^nd amendment on their side to give them the right to keep and bear arms the opposing side to this argument has no reason to fight our rights but they still try.

So far I’ve talked about each side some but a little more you should know the NRA (National Rifle Association) is for guns while the Brady Campaign is against guns. Each has their own reasons but let me just throw out some facts that may even sway strong anti-gun users. People worry about guns being used to hurt others but every 13 seconds someone uses a gun in self defense and 91% of these cases the person being threatened by the defender wasn’t injured. In 2008 about 11,000 people were murdered with a firearm you may find this to be against my point but about 48,700 people were saved by use of a firearm in 2010. So why again would we take away what is one of the most powerful tools that saves so many lives.

By now you’re either looking at this and thinking that maybe he is right and that guns really can help people or you think that I have too much bias and that that is ruling the stats I put up. Well think of this put up whatever you want and just think if we take away guns for citizens then criminals will find a way to get guns and we can move that number of people saved by guns over to the number of people murdered. You’ve seen that people from Lobbyist to competitive shooter and even the Supreme Court have said that no matter what we The People have the right to keep and bear arms.

Interview

I interviewed a Hinesburg police officer Brian Fox. His view on gun control was that of a typical Vermonter but he was more informed and knows the laws. He feels that "Vermont is very liberal with it's gun laws.". When asked about things such as needs for trigger locks in other areas and he said that for things like unloaded weapons he feels that with people that don't really have a understanding of weapons could be in danger because that can't handle a weapon safely. He said something that during this project I've heard a lot if you restrict gun laws the criminal if he really wants the gun he can find a way to get it.

During the process of setting up a interview I found that not many people stay in one place for too long. I had trouble finding someone in the first place but after I had found a person the person I found was a hard working individual and had a very busy schedule that didn't quite match up with mine. So in the end because of time limitations I had to use the interview that was so helpfully set  up by our teachers to dig some of the students out of the hole we had fallen into. Otherwise I felt the process was quite entertaining I felt it was a lot of fun to here what someone with a different perspective has on the subject I had been working on for weeks. In the end I felt this was a experience that will really benefit me in the future.

Stake Holders

     In the US constitution the second amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the right that the people who are working for the right for the people to carry firearms are saying. They feel that if they are a law abiding citizen that they should be able to carry and use a firearm for sport and self defense. This group of people think that it's not really a gun who kills the person it's the actions of the person holding the gun. This is a group of people who strongly believe that if they live in a area that permits firearms and they are a law abiding citizen they should have the rights taken away because of other people's actions.

     When the gun was designed there was one soul purpose to harm other people or things. This side of the debate strongly believes that guns are simply barbaric tools of destruction. Guns are simply a tool to kill even if you are shooting a burglar in self defense is any human life worth a simple item that can be replaced. But not only do firearms allow people to kill other people it allows people to kill themselves. When someone attempts to suicide with a firearm the chance of survival is so slim they will never get a chance to see that how much the attempt really affects the people who love them. So in the end this is simply a group that believes that though in areas it may be legal to own a firearm doesn't change the way that people could use them.

Panel Day Reflection

     During panel day we had three speakers Officer Dempsey, Adam Nielsen and Evan Hughes all of these speakers had prepared for questions and were there to make sure we were able to learn from the experience. Officer Dempsey gave us a view on the second amendment from the perspective of the law and was able to help us understand how the law related to the second amendment. Adam Nielsen a competitive shooter talked about some of his experiences with the way gun laws are structured differently  from state to state. Evan Hughes spoke in a very professional manner because of his experience as a lobbyist for our second amendment rights. Evan spoke about how there were many "facts" out there that may be inaccurate and slide the statistics toward one side of the argument. But over all the speakers provided a lot of information that you wouldn't realize are facts that can really bring your argument to a new level. I think that the information they provided was accurate and will benefit us in the long run.