American
Studies Blog Week 9
Compare any TWO websites, one pro-gun
control and one anti-gun control. If your views are pro-gun control, analyse
the video in favour of guns and explain its point of view - and vice versa if
your views are anti-gun control.
Being in
favour of gun control myself, I selected a source that is against the idea of
restricting the ownership of guns in the U.S. The video I chose is from a
public hearing concerned with the prevention of gun violence. The speaker is Henson
Ong, an American citizen, presumably of Korean or Chinese ancestry. He argues
that the proposed gun-control measures would “do nothing to deter future
crimes” and that real problem that lies behind gun violence today is “societal
decay”. It seems that here he is expressing his belief that crimes would
persist regardless of whether firearms are banned as the problem with violence
lies with people. He reinforces this point by claiming that firearms have
existed for years, whilst it is only recently that we have seen them used in
tragic circumstances, like the massacre at Columbine High School.
Other
points he makes include a reference to the high crime rates of cities such as
Washington D.C and Chicago, which persist despite their strict gun control
policies, and an argument against the notion that “assault rifles” or AR-15’s
are “weapons of mass destruction.” Here
he claims that the Department of Homeland Security described such firearms as
“suitable for personal defence of use”. Another reason he gives for being allowed
to own firearms is the claim that “assault rifles” saved Koreans during the LA
riots, as they allowed them to defend their lives and protect their businesses from
being burnt down, unlike other people who did not possess such weapons. He also
refers to the Tiananmen Square protests in China in 1989, noting that the
number of students that were killed would not have been so high had they not
been unarmed.
As is the
case with many anti-gun control activists he also refers to the Second
Amendment. He categorically states the “state” to which the Second Amendment
refers to is not the “government” but the “people” and as such it is their
right to bear firearms. He also makes it clear that he believes there is no
relation between the Amendment and hunting, stating that the right to own
firearms is specific to the “preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated
militia”. The “militia” in this context means, in his understanding, any male
capable of “acting in common defence” and he states that the Amendment requires
all men to appear “bearing arms supplied by themselves” if called to serve their
country. He concludes by quoting a statement from a court case in 2003 by Judge
Alex Kozinski who said that the “Second Amendment is a doomsday provision” that
is designed for “those exceptionally
rare circumstances when all other rights have failed”.
As we can see, there are two main
points on which his argument rests: 1) Society is to blame for gun violence; 2)
It is the constitutional right of Americans to bear firearms. Yet the first
point can easily be refuted as the “societal decay” to which he refers to is
far too vague and difficult to prove. Also if the “decay” is meant to refer to mentally
ill people, for example, it would seem to be in the general population’s
interests to ban firearms to prevent such people from having the means of
causing the tragedies to which Americans have become accustomed to today. The
examples that he uses to highlight the positive uses of firearms are valid, but
it seems that more often than not there are more negative aspects and problems
associated with firearms. His second point is also weak in places, as the
language of the Second Amendment itself is vague and is open to interpretation.
In addition, his point about the “militia” is contradictory, as it seems as
though it suggests that it is only in the context of protecting the country
that one has the right to own and use firearms.
In conclusion,
although his arguments appear initially to be well constructed and valid, they
have had little effect in changing my opinion in favour of gun control. However,
it is interesting to note that his point on crime rates being high in
Washington DC and Chicago despite gun control, correlates with the similar crime
rates of UK and Australia which have not been reduced despite the banning of
firearms. This suggests that gun control is not quite as effective as I thought
it was.
Anti-Gun Control Sources
http://angrywhitedude.com/2013/01/meet-henson-ong-few-saw-the-third-reich-coming-until-it-was-too-late/
Pro-Gun Control Video - http://vimeo.com/67635001
