The reason that the idea of gun control exists is fear. Fear of the unknown and fear that the government can’t protect its citizens. Gun control is an attempt to stop gun violence in the U.S and to reassure its citizens that the government can still protect them. This idea is too farfetched. Most people would agree that a gun in their house is reinsurance that if someone breaks in to their house they might have a weapon to defend themselves.
The government failed at trying to make the people support this idea because the world is filled with uncertainty. If the government tries to even ban guns the people who commit crimes will always find a way to get them. The fact that many people can still get drugs is evidence that the government cannot stop smuggling. Then the “bad guys” would have guns and the “good guys” would have what…swords? O yea that is defiantly going to end well for the good guys. The government would have to restrict certain freedoms, such as YouTube and the gun fanatics like FpsRussia. They would also have to define when one can walk outside, to make sure that nothing bad happens to the citizens. Clearly, this is opposed by a lot of U.S. citizens.
Personally, I think that government is going about this in the complete opposite way, what if the right thing to do is support more people with guns. If more people are allowed to possess a concealed handgun, then our streets would be safer. Think of it this way, if someone walked into a theater with a Kevlar vest and a fully automatic rifle and twenty citizens pulled a gun on this person, then this person would probable surrender. Now obviously there needs to be a better class for concealed handguns, but if government is supports more people to own guns, then crime rates would reduce. However others think differently, like in my government class. Some of my fellow students think that the government can fix this dilemma, and my government class has taught me to see both sides of the story. So, yes the government could fix this troubling state, but it would be difficult from the statements made above. The government would need to completely change its image. Furthermore the “Local and national authorities need to find ways to assure Americans that a safe society is one in which well-trained law enforcement is the best answer to controlling crime and assuring safety.”
Gun control is just an idea that is not going to move anywhere due to the sheer number of opposing citizens. Government has tried to implicate this idea, but the government has failed again at trying to assure its citizens that gun control is smart and that they can always protect us. Perhaps the government can support guns instead of scorning them.
Politicians are rather well off; they take other people’s money and risk very little except their jobs. When politicians want to be re-elected they start a campaign. Obviously the politician needs money to do this, spending money will win the recipient votes, but raising taxes to pay for this spending will lose votes. Fortunately pensions offer away out of this problem.
Thomas Sowell a journalist describes the politician’s management of pensions as “Creating pensions that offer generous retirement benefits wins votes in the present by promising spending in the future”. In the past someone’s word meant everything, now days it does not have the same significance. Sure the government will have to pay them back, but when and with what money? The promise of something does not cost anything for a while and that’s what happens the politicians make promises, but after a while they retire and it is someone else’s problem. This means that very shortly many pensions will need to be paid and there is not enough money in reserve to pay them back.
One might say that to get this money the government can cut military spending. This could have great benefits, but I know history has a similar story. In the 1930’s, FDR cut on military expenses. In the beginning of WWII the U.S. had the 16th largest military in the world. Even for a small military it was still inadequately supplied and trained. Many soldiers in the Philippines fought with guns from the Spanish-American war. Even the grenades issued somewhat worked, some of them were so old that they didn’t explode when through. The U.S. has one of the best armies in the world and maybe cutting funding to the military is very prosperous, but if there is a war the U.S. will suffer. However, because we live in a nuclear era maybe we could cut the military and not have any consequences due to M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction).
Personally I think that cutting the military might not be a bad idea, but it defiantly is not my first choice. There are other places that the government fund that should be cut such as un-important statistics like the one in California that they somehow concluded that there is a direct link from eating ice cream and drowning’s. This is a very clear false statistic and the government should not have funded this.
In my government class we have been talking about the economy and how it can be improved. We have even done a project on this and had to present the idea. Spending cuts were a few ideas, but only a few thought that cutting military funding was a good idea. Based on what I have learned in this class, I have learned to keep an open mind to everyone’s opinion. I am staring to understand how much influence the president has and how he should use it properly. I have learned how politicians work and some of their tricks. The pensions above clearly state one of the tricks they hold. However, the more I look into the way politics work, the more I am saddened that they only seem to look out for themselves. Instead of doing their job and doing what’s best for the country. One thing is clear, the future is uncertain and anything could happen.