***********
Disclaimer: I have not made my presentation to Capital Hill yet,however, if things to not make strides in the right direction Iwill be in two months time.
***********
The Colorado capital is the premier location to discusses guns rights because that is where the law makers to make the final decision reside. It is possible to discuss this topic in a smaller venue, however, the effectiveness is not there. Someone would be able to change a mind or two but that is a useless number to have any real impact. The Capital is where a message would reach both sides of an issue and contribute a dramatic imprint on personal opinion. At the end of the day general belief is irrelevant; it is the opinion of the lawmaker that makes the difference. That is why the lawmaker in the end is my goal.
To present my case, I will establish my credentials. I am a Afghanistan and Iraq war veteran with experience in combat. I have lived in a variety of states with dramatically different gun laws. It has been my experience that the stricter the gun laws are the more gun crime that location has. I have taught gun control and marksmanship in both the civilian and civilian sector. For these reasons I believe I can credibly present my point of view. I understand both points of views but in the end I am correct. The argument I will present to the capital will be a rogerian argument.
Gun control is a topic that has been debated for many years, but in recent times has been brought forth as one of the leading issues in politics. This was caused by the increased incidence of national and international acts of terror. This raises the question of what is the right level of gun control to maintain safety in the community, while not intruding on the rights of the American guaranteed by the Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees the right for an American citizen to own firearms and does not dictate why or what that citizen can carry. This open-ended right leads to a multitude of views on what this Amendment truly means.
It is clear that an individual’s safety, both in schools and in society as a whole, is an incredibly important issue that has not been completely obtained in society today. Multiple times a year, gunmen take out their aggression on unarmed, innocent people without rhyme or reason. This is seen in acts like the Aurora shooting in Colorado, California community college shooting, and the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. Each of these events caused innocent people to be injured or killed. For these reasons, stricter gun control has been suggested to curb the frequency of these events. It is believed by many that reducing the availability of weapons will reduce the probably of public shootings such as these to occur and increase the overall safety of society. Society as a whole has sacrificed the rights of the individual for the security of society before. This can be seen when traveling by air. It is widely accepted by all to subjugate oneself to search by TSA and customs to reduce the chances of any acts of violence on airlines. Gun control can be used for the same purpose. By forfeiting some of rights to own firearms, it will insure enhanced safety. This is not too much to ask to a better society and to ensure the safety of its citizens.
While it is true that society has been willing to forfeit some rights to ensure safety for the community, but how much is too much? The searches by TSA have been successful at countering any further airline hijacking to date. However, before 9/11, hijacking was not a large problem. The tragedy that happened in America on 9/11 was an isolated event; one that did not happen previously or since. The sheer size and scope of the terrorist activity of 9/11 and fallout because of it made these searches an undisputed and acceptable activity to society. School shootings are a much smaller incident. These incidents, though terrible in nature, don’t warrant the massive intuition on the rights of average Americans that are occurring in response to these stories. Regulation and profiling of gun ownership is removing one’s ability to protect themselves or their family. In addition, the steps being taken are not removing weapons from criminals, only from law-abiding citizens who follow gun laws.
The regulations and profiling going on today is not only a violation of the Second Amendment but, by default, the Fourth Amendment as well. Gun owners already have to submit themselves to background check and fingerprinting. If a gun owner takes it a step further and applies for a concealed weapons permit, that individual must prove that they are trained in firearm safety. Registered gun owners also only make up .06 of a percent of all gun related crime within the United States. Placing more regulation on this group would not decrease gun crime. The laws that are being put into place are also not addressing the issue of gun crime. The magazine law adopted in Colorado limits the total number of shells or rounds a firearm can hold is a perfect example. The law as written contains a massive loophole. Any magazines out there already are grandfathered in and any magazines bought in another state are still legal. This law gives the false premise of security without reason. The laws being put into place do more harm than good.
Let us, as an example, consider all of the heinous crimes commented in the last few years involving firearms and apply the new laws to those situations to see if they would have been effective. None of these laws would prevent a single one of them. All of the heinous, much publicized school shooting occurred with firearms that were not purchased by the individuals that used them. In addition, the magazine laws would not decrease the carnage in these situations because each shooter had a multitude of magazines and weapons on their person. All in all, even though these crimes are terrible in nature, the gun laws being proposed will not stop or slow down the crime.
There is a glimmer of hope to resolve this issue. If we increase the number of correctly trained and armed security officers and spread them throughout high populated areas, this would increase security without impeding on individual rights. It would also give the additional benefit of opening up jobs and spread security to a much larger area. In addition, response time would be cut dramatically. Violence has always been a part of society, and there is no way to avoid it. By increasing the numbers and visibility of trained security officers, it will increase the practical impact of security, which in many cases prevents illegal activities from occurring. Prevention will be more effective than limiting law-abiding individuals.
All in all, I believe the combination of my reputation and my argument will win over a few people. Hopefully, most of them will be lawmakers because it is their opinion that counts. The combined factors of my experience and compromise on the gun control issue that will begin the process to a solution that insures the safety of the average citizen, as well as, preserve the rights that many hold dear to their hearts and many define themselves by.
Disclaimer: I have not made my presentation to Capital Hill yet,however, if things to not make strides in the right direction Iwill be in two months time.
***********
The Colorado capital is the premier location to discusses guns rights because that is where the law makers to make the final decision reside. It is possible to discuss this topic in a smaller venue, however, the effectiveness is not there. Someone would be able to change a mind or two but that is a useless number to have any real impact. The Capital is where a message would reach both sides of an issue and contribute a dramatic imprint on personal opinion. At the end of the day general belief is irrelevant; it is the opinion of the lawmaker that makes the difference. That is why the lawmaker in the end is my goal.
To present my case, I will establish my credentials. I am a Afghanistan and Iraq war veteran with experience in combat. I have lived in a variety of states with dramatically different gun laws. It has been my experience that the stricter the gun laws are the more gun crime that location has. I have taught gun control and marksmanship in both the civilian and civilian sector. For these reasons I believe I can credibly present my point of view. I understand both points of views but in the end I am correct. The argument I will present to the capital will be a rogerian argument.
Gun control is a topic that has been debated for many years, but in recent times has been brought forth as one of the leading issues in politics. This was caused by the increased incidence of national and international acts of terror. This raises the question of what is the right level of gun control to maintain safety in the community, while not intruding on the rights of the American guaranteed by the Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees the right for an American citizen to own firearms and does not dictate why or what that citizen can carry. This open-ended right leads to a multitude of views on what this Amendment truly means.
It is clear that an individual’s safety, both in schools and in society as a whole, is an incredibly important issue that has not been completely obtained in society today. Multiple times a year, gunmen take out their aggression on unarmed, innocent people without rhyme or reason. This is seen in acts like the Aurora shooting in Colorado, California community college shooting, and the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. Each of these events caused innocent people to be injured or killed. For these reasons, stricter gun control has been suggested to curb the frequency of these events. It is believed by many that reducing the availability of weapons will reduce the probably of public shootings such as these to occur and increase the overall safety of society. Society as a whole has sacrificed the rights of the individual for the security of society before. This can be seen when traveling by air. It is widely accepted by all to subjugate oneself to search by TSA and customs to reduce the chances of any acts of violence on airlines. Gun control can be used for the same purpose. By forfeiting some of rights to own firearms, it will insure enhanced safety. This is not too much to ask to a better society and to ensure the safety of its citizens.
While it is true that society has been willing to forfeit some rights to ensure safety for the community, but how much is too much? The searches by TSA have been successful at countering any further airline hijacking to date. However, before 9/11, hijacking was not a large problem. The tragedy that happened in America on 9/11 was an isolated event; one that did not happen previously or since. The sheer size and scope of the terrorist activity of 9/11 and fallout because of it made these searches an undisputed and acceptable activity to society. School shootings are a much smaller incident. These incidents, though terrible in nature, don’t warrant the massive intuition on the rights of average Americans that are occurring in response to these stories. Regulation and profiling of gun ownership is removing one’s ability to protect themselves or their family. In addition, the steps being taken are not removing weapons from criminals, only from law-abiding citizens who follow gun laws.
The regulations and profiling going on today is not only a violation of the Second Amendment but, by default, the Fourth Amendment as well. Gun owners already have to submit themselves to background check and fingerprinting. If a gun owner takes it a step further and applies for a concealed weapons permit, that individual must prove that they are trained in firearm safety. Registered gun owners also only make up .06 of a percent of all gun related crime within the United States. Placing more regulation on this group would not decrease gun crime. The laws that are being put into place are also not addressing the issue of gun crime. The magazine law adopted in Colorado limits the total number of shells or rounds a firearm can hold is a perfect example. The law as written contains a massive loophole. Any magazines out there already are grandfathered in and any magazines bought in another state are still legal. This law gives the false premise of security without reason. The laws being put into place do more harm than good.
Let us, as an example, consider all of the heinous crimes commented in the last few years involving firearms and apply the new laws to those situations to see if they would have been effective. None of these laws would prevent a single one of them. All of the heinous, much publicized school shooting occurred with firearms that were not purchased by the individuals that used them. In addition, the magazine laws would not decrease the carnage in these situations because each shooter had a multitude of magazines and weapons on their person. All in all, even though these crimes are terrible in nature, the gun laws being proposed will not stop or slow down the crime.
There is a glimmer of hope to resolve this issue. If we increase the number of correctly trained and armed security officers and spread them throughout high populated areas, this would increase security without impeding on individual rights. It would also give the additional benefit of opening up jobs and spread security to a much larger area. In addition, response time would be cut dramatically. Violence has always been a part of society, and there is no way to avoid it. By increasing the numbers and visibility of trained security officers, it will increase the practical impact of security, which in many cases prevents illegal activities from occurring. Prevention will be more effective than limiting law-abiding individuals.
All in all, I believe the combination of my reputation and my argument will win over a few people. Hopefully, most of them will be lawmakers because it is their opinion that counts. The combined factors of my experience and compromise on the gun control issue that will begin the process to a solution that insures the safety of the average citizen, as well as, preserve the rights that many hold dear to their hearts and many define themselves by.